A church dictionary (part 4 of 8)

A church dictionary (part 4 of 8)

These are both comprehended under the name of manse, and the rule of the canon law is, “Sancitum est, ut unicuique ecclesiæ unus mansus integer, absque ullo servitio, tribuatur.” This is repeated in the canons of Egbert; and the assigning of these was of such absolute necessity, that without them no church could be regularly consecrated. The fee simple of the glebe is in abeyance, from the French bayer, to expect, i. e. it is only in the remembrance, expectation, and intendment, of law. Lord Coke says, this was provided by the providence and wisdom of the law, for that the parson and vicar have cure of souls, and were bound to celebrate Divine service, and administer the sacraments, and therefore no act of the predecessor should make a discontinuance, to take away the entry of the successor, and to drive him to a real action whereby he might be destitute of maintenance in the mean time.

After induction, the freehold of the glebe is in the parson, but with these limitations: (1.) That he may not alienate, nor exchange, except upon the conditions set forth in the statutes cited below; (2.) that he may not commit waste by selling wood, &c.

But it has been adjudged that the digging of mines in glebe lands is not waste; for the court said, in denying a prohibition, “if this were accounted waste, no mines that are in glebe lands could ever be opened.”

Glebe lands, in the hands of the parson, shall not pay tithe to the vicar, though endowed generally of the tithes of all lands within the parish; nor being in the hands of the vicar, shall they pay tithe to the parson. This is according to the known maxim of the canon law, that “The Church shall not pay tithes to the Church;” but otherwise if the glebe be leased out, for then it shall be liable to pay tithes respectively as other lands are. By a statute of Henry VIII., if the parson dies in possession of glebe, and another is inducted before severance of the crop from the ground, his executor shall have the corn, but the successor shall have the tithes: the reason is, because, although the executor represents the testator, yet he cannot represent him as parson; inasmuch as another parson is inducted. By 13 Eliz. c. 10, the term for leasing glebe is limited to twenty-one years, or three lives. The 55 Geo. III. c. 147, 56 Geo. III. c. 52, 1 Geo. IV. c. 6, are acts for “enabling spiritual persons to exchange their parsonage houses or glebe lands.” (See also 6 Geo. IV. c. 8; 7 Geo. IV. c. 66; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 23; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 49; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 27; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 93.)

Canon 87. A Terrier of Glebe lands, and other Possessions belonging to Churches.—“We ordain that the archbishops and all bishops within their several dioceses shall procure (as much as in them lieth) that a true note and terrier of all the glebes, lands, meadows, gardens, orchards, houses, stocks, implements, tenements, and portions of tithes, lying out of their parishes, (which belong to any parsonage, or vicarage, or rural prebend,) be taken by the view of honest men in every parish, by the appointment of the bishop, (whereof the minister to be one,) and be laid up in the bishop’s registry, there to be for a perpetual memory thereof.”

By 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, the bishop may assign four acres of glebe to the curate, occupying the house of a non-resident incumbent, at a fixed rent, to be approved of by the bishop.

GLORIA IN EXCELSIS. “Glory be [to GOD] on high.” One of the doxologies of the Church, sometimes called the angelic hymn, because the first part of it was sung by the angels at Bethlehem. The latter portion of this celebrated hymn is ascribed to Telesphorus, bishop of Rome, about the year of CHRIST 139; and the whole hymn, with very little difference, is to be found in the Apostolical Constitutions, and was established to be used in the Church service by the fourth Council of Toledo, A. D. 633. It is used by both the Greek and Latin Church. “In the Eastern Church,” says Palmer, “this hymn is more than 1500 years old, and the Church of England has used it, either at the beginning or end of the liturgy, for above 1200 years.” It is now used at the conclusion of the Communion Service; but in the First Book of King Edward VI. was placed near the beginning. It is directed to be sung or said; and ought to be sung in all cathedrals at least, as it is still at Exeter, Durham, and occasionally at Worcester and Windsor.

GLORIA PATRI. “Glory be to the FATHER.” The Latin title of one of the primitive doxologies of the Church, sometimes called the lesser doxology, to distinguish it from the Gloria in excelsis, or angelic hymn. From the times of the apostles it has been customary to mingle ascriptions of glory with prayer, and to conclude the praises of the Church, and also sermons, with glory to the FATHER, to the SON, and to the HOLY GHOST. The first part of the Gloria Patri is traced by St. Basil to the apostolic age. In the writings of the Fathers, doxologies are of very frequent occurrence, and in the early Church they appear to have been used as tests, by which orthodox Christians and Churches were distinguished from those which were infected with heresy. The doxologies then in use, though the same in substance, were various in form and mode of expression. The Arians soon took advantage of this diversity, and wrested some of them so as to appear to favour their own views. One of the doxologies which ran in these words, “Glory be to the FATHER, by the SON, in the HOLY GHOST,” was employed by them in support of their heretical opinions. In consequence of this, and to set the true doctrine of the Church in the clearest light, the form, as now used, was adopted as the standing doxology of the Church. (See Doxology.)

Of the hymns that made a part of the service of the ancient Church, one of the most common was what is called the lesser doxology. The most ancient form of it was only a single sentence without a response—“Glory be to the FATHER, and to the SON, and to the HOLY GHOST, world without end. Amen.” Part of the latter clause, “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,” was inserted some time after the first composition. In the fourth Council of Toledo, an. 633, the words, “As it was in the beginning,” &c., are omitted, but the word “honour” is added to “glory,” according to a decree of that council; that it should be said, “Glory and honour be to the FATHER:” forasmuch as the prophet David says, “Bring glory and honour to the LORD,” and John the Evangelist, in the Revelation, heard the voice of the heavenly host, saying, “Honour and glory be to our GOD, who sitteth on the throne.” (Rev. v. 13.) From whence they conclude, that it ought to be said on earth as it is sung in heaven. The Mozarabic liturgy, which was used in Spain a little after this time, has it in the very same form: “Glory and honour be to the FATHER, and to the SON, and to the HOLY GHOST, world without end. Amen.” The Catholics themselves of old were wont to say, some, “Glory be to the FATHER, and to the SON, and to the HOLY GHOST;” others, “with the HOLY GHOST;” and others, “in or by the SON, and by the HOLY GHOST.” These different ways of expressing were all allowed, so long as no heterodox opinion was suspected to be couched under them. But when Arius had broached his heresy in the world, his followers would use no other form of glorification but the last, and made it a distinguishing character of their party to say, “Glory be to the FATHER, in, or by, the SON, and HOLY GHOST:” intending hereby to denote, that the SON and HOLY GHOST were inferior to the FATHER in substance, and, as creatures, of a different nature from him, as Sozomen and other ancient writers inform us. From this time it became scandalous, and brought any one under the suspicion of heterodoxy to use it, because the Arians had now, as it were, made it the shibboleth of their party. We may observe, that it was a hymn of most general use, and a doxology offered to GOD in the close of every solemn office. The Western Church repeated it at the end of every psalm, and the Eastern Church at the end of the last psalm.—The whole commonly running thus: “To FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, be all glory, worship, thanksgiving, honour, and adoration, now and for ever, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”—Bingham.

In this diversity there was certainly nothing either intended ill towards the truth, or which could be directly drawn into ill construction; but when, about the time of the Nicene Council, the Arians began to sow their seeds of heresy touching the inequality of the three persons, and, the better to colour their pretences, sheltered themselves under the protection of the doxology, “the FATHER, by the SON, in the HOLY GHOST,” formerly used, to which they constantly adhere, the Council of Nice, to avoid all occasion of future question, held herself to that form which came nighest to the form of baptism composed by our SAVIOUR, and the doctrine of Christian faith; prescribing it to be punctually observed by all such as were of the orthodox party.—L’Estrange.

It were well if this ancient heresy were so buried as never to rise or revive any more. But, alas! that weed was never so thoroughly rooted out, but the seeds of it soon sprang up again, to the depraving of the doctrine and disturbing the peace of the Church. In these later years there hath arisen up one Socinus, a man of a subtle and crafty wit, who hath rubbed up and revived the same heresy, by denying the Divinity and satisfaction of our blessed SAVIOUR, and hath carried away many by his cunning and corrupt reasoning.—Hole.

If the reasoning of Basil be conclusive, or his opinion may be relied upon, this hymn, Gloria Patri, derives its origin from the apostles. Glorifying the FATHER, and the SON, together with the HOLY GHOST, was in Basil’s judgment practised and prescribed by the apostles themselves. This, he believes, was one of the “ordinances,” or “traditions,” which St. Paul praises the Corinthians for keeping, as they had been delivered to them by him (1 Cor. xi. 2); and exhorts the Thessalonians to hold, as they had been taught, whether by word, or by epistle. (2 Thess. ii. 15.) On this principle, Basil accounts for the practice of ascribing glory to the Trinity, which in his day was universal.—In different passages of his works we find him thus arguing: “As we have received, so must we be baptized; as we are baptized, so must we believe; and as we have believed, so must we glorify the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST.”—Shepherd.

The earliest instance that we meet with of the use of this hymn, is found in the circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna, concerning the martyrdom of their beloved bishop Polycarp, from whence we learn that a doxology, nearly resembling Gloria Patri, was the last words he uttered. Polycarp was conversant with the apostles, and was consecrated bishop of Smyrna by St. John the Evangelist. To him, among others, St. John is said to have addressed the Revelation, in which Polycarp is entitled “the angel of the Church of Smyrna.” With some little difference in the phrase of their doxologies, the Christians of the three first ages agreed in uniformly expressing the same thing. Believing and confessing, that in the eternal GODHEAD there existed three, the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST, they ascribed to them all honour and glory.—Shepherd.

To this very day this serves for these two uses; first, as a shorter creed, and confession of our believing in “three persons and one GOD,” whereby we both declare ourselves to be in the communion of the Catholic Church, and also renounce all heretics who deny this great and distinguishing article of our faith; secondly, for a hymn of praise, by which we magnify the FATHER for our creation, the SON for our redemption, and the HOLY GHOST for our sanctification; and to quicken us herein, we declare it was so “in the beginning,” for the angels sung the praises of the Trinity in the morning of the creation; and the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, saints and martyrs, did thus worship GOD from the beginning. The whole Church militant and triumphant doth it “now,” and shall do it for “ever,” not only in this “world,” but in that which is “without end.” Let us, therefore, with great devotion, join with this blessed company in so good a work, and give glory to the FATHER who granted our pardon, to the SON who purchased it, and to the HOLY GHOST who sealed it.—Comber.

GLOSS. A comment.

GNOSTICS. (From γνώσις, knowledge.) The word Gnostic properly signifies a learned or enlightened person; and thus Clement of Alexandria uses it to denote the perfect Christian, who is the true Gnostic. But in its more common use, the term signifies a class of heretics, who pretended to superior knowledge, and mixed up some Christian ideas and terms with systems based on Platonism, Oriental philosophy, or corrupt Judaism. To this class most of the earliest sects belonged. Simon Magus may be considered as the forerunner of Gnosticism; and in the second century there were many varieties of Gnostics—as the followers of Basilides Saturninus, Carpocrates, Valentinus, &c. Of these the Carpocratians alone are said to have assumed the name.

The Gnostic systems held in common a belief in one supreme God, dwelling from eternity in the Pleroma, or fulness of light. From him proceed successive generations of spiritual beings—called by Valentinus Æons. In proportion as these emanations are more remote from the primal source, the likeness of his perfections in them is continually fainter. Matter is regarded as eternal, and as inherently evil. Out of it the world was formed, not by the Supreme GOD, but by the Demiurge—a being who is represented by some heresiarchs as merely a subordinate and unconscious instrument of the Divine will, and by others as positively malignant, and hostile to the Supreme. The Demiurge was the national God of the Jews—the God of the Old Testament; according, therefore, as he is viewed, the Mosaic economy is either recognised as preparatory, or is rejected as evil. The mission of CHRIST was for the purpose of delivering man from the tyranny of the Demiurge. But the Christ of Gnosticism was neither very God nor very man. His spiritual nature, being an emanation from the Supreme GOD, was necessarily inferior to its original; and, on the other hand, an emanation from GOD could not dwell in a material, and consequently evil, body. Either, therefore, Jesus was a mere man, on whom the Æon Christ descended at his baptism, to forsake him again before his crucifixion; or the body with which CHRIST seemed to be clothed was only a phantom, and all his actions were only in appearance. (See Docetæ.)

The same view as to the evil nature of matter led the Gnostics to deny the resurrection of the body. They could admit no other than a spiritual resurrection; the object of their philosophy was to emancipate the soul from its gross and material prison at death; the soul of the perfect Gnostic, having already risen in baptism, was to be gathered into the bosom of GOD, while such souls as yet lacked their full perfection, were to work it out in a series of transmigrations.

Since matter was evil, the Gnostic was required to overcome it. But here arose an important practical difference; for, while some sought the victory by a high ascetic abstraction from the things of sense, the baser kind professed to show their superiority and indifference by wallowing in impurity and excess.—(See Bardesanists, Basilidians, Carpocratians, Marcionites, Ophitæ, Valentinians.)

GOD. This is the name we give to that eternal, infinite, and incomprehensible Being, the Maker and Preserver of all things, who exists One Being in a Trinity of Persons. The name is derived from the Icelandic Godi, which signifies the supreme magistrate.

Article I. “There is but one living and true GOD, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this GODHEAD there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST.”

The FATHER is GOD.

GOD the FATHER (John vi. 27; Gal. i. 1, 3; 1 Thess. i. 1). GOD, even the FATHER (1 Cor. xv. 24; 2 Cor. i. 3; James iii. 9). One GOD and FATHER (Eph. iv. 6). One GOD the FATHER (1 Cor. viii. 6); and the passages where GOD is spoken of as the FATHER of our LORD CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD (Matt. xvi. 16; John iii. 16; vi. 27; Rom. v. 10; viii. 3; xv. 6).

The SON is GOD.

I. So expressly declared.

The mighty GOD (Isa. ix. 6). Make straight—a highway for our God! (xl. 3). Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever! (Ps. xlv. 6, with Heb. i. 8). I will save them by the LORD their GOD (Hosea i. 7). Immanuel, GOD with us (Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23). The Word was GOD (John i. 1). My LORD and my GOD! (xx. 28; see Ps. xxxv. 23). Feed the Church of GOD, which he has purchased with his own blood (Acts xx. 28). They stoned Stephen, calling upon GOD, and saying, LORD JESUS, &c. (vii. 59). CHRIST is over all, GOD, blessed for ever! (Rom. ix. 5.) GOD was manifest in the flesh, &c., believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Tim. iii. 16). GOD our SAVIOUR. (Titus ii. 10). The great GOD (13). Our GOD and SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST (Gr.) (2 Pet. i. 1, with Titus ii. 13). Hereby perceive we the love of GOD, because he laid down his life for us (1 John iii. 16). The true GOD, and eternal life (v. 20).

II. By necessary implication.

The angel Jehovah is GOD (Gen. xxxi. 11, with 13; and xxxv. 9–13, and 15; xvi. 9, with 13; Ex. iii. 2, with 4, and 6). I am Alpha and Omega—he that overcometh—I will be his GOD (Rev. xxi. 6, 7). We must all stand before the judgment seat of CHRIST, for,—every tongue shall confess to GOD (Rom. xiv. 10, 11). I saw the dead, small and great, stand before GOD, &c. (Rev. xx. 12). Many shall he (John the Baptist) turn to the LORD their GOD, for he shall go before him (Luke i. 16, 17; with Matt. iii. 11, and xi. 10). The LORD GOD of the holy prophets sent his angel (Rev. xxii. 6, with 16). I JESUS have sent mine angel to testify, &c. They tempted the most high GOD (Ps. lxxviii. 56), applied to CHRIST (1 Cor. x. 9). Behold the LORD GOD will come—behold his reward is with him (Isa. xl. 10, with Rev. xxii. 12, 20). Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me—I am Alpha and Omega. Surely I come quickly, Amen! even so, come, LORD JESUS!—To the only wise GOD, our SAVIOUR, be glory, &c. Amen! (Jude 25).

III. From his attributes.

As he is wisdom itself (Prov. viii. throughout; Luke xi. 49, with Col. ii. 3).—As he is the holy one (Ps. xvi. 10); the most holy (Dan. ix. 24, with Rev. iii. 7).—As he is the truth (John xiv. 6, and Rev. iii. 7, with 1 John v. 20).—As he is eternal.—Eternal life (1 John i. 1, 2, and v. 20).—From his unchangeableness (Heb. i. 11, 12, and xiii. 8, with Mal. iii. 6).—His omnipresence (John iii. 13; Matt. xviii. 20; xxviii. 20; Eph. i. 23; iv. 10).—His omniscience (Rev. ii. 23; John ii. 24, 25; v. 42). Knowing the thoughts (Matt. ix. 4; xii. 15, 25; Mark ii. 8; Luke v. 22; vi. 8; ix. 47; xi. 17; John vi. 61, 64; xvi. 19; xxi. 17, with 1 Cor. iv. 5; this with 1 Kings viii. 39). Thou, even thou only, (O LORD GOD,) knowest the hearts of all the children of men.—Omnipotence: The works of creation. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made (John i. 3, with Ps. cii. 25; Col. i. 16, and Jer. x. 10, 11).—And providence. By him all things consist (Col. i. 17). Upholding all things by the word of his power (Heb. i. 3).—Judging the world. The LORD JESUS CHRIST, who shall judge the quick and the dead (2 Tim. iv. 1, &c., with Gen. xviii. 25, and Ps. l. 6). GOD is judge himself.—Raising the dead (John vi. 40, 54; v. 28, 29; with Deut. xxxii. 39). I, even I, am he, and there is no GOD with me; I kill, and I make alive!—The forgiveness of sins (Mark ii. 10, 11, &c., with Isa. xliii. 25). I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions, and Mark ii. 7.

IV. As Divine worship is due, and paid to him.

Being directed by prophecy. All kings shall fall down before him (Ps. lxxii. 11). All dominions shall serve and obey him (Dan. vii. 27). Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way (Ps. ii. 12). He is thy LORD, and worship thou him (xlv. 11). Let all the angels of GOD worship him! (Heb. i. 6.) All men should honour the SON, even as they honour the FATHER. External worship was paid by the wise men (Matt. ii. 11)—by the leper (viii. 2)—by the ruler (ix. 18)—by the seamen in the storm (xiv. 33)—by the woman of Canaan (xv. 25)—by the blind man (John ix. 38)—by the Marys, &c. (Matt. xxviii. 9), and by his disciples (Rev. i. 17). At the name of JESUS every knee should bow in heaven and in earth (Phil. ii. 10; compare this with Matt. iv. 10, Thou shalt worship the LORD thy GOD, and him only shalt thou serve; and Neh. ix. 6, Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, &c., and the host of heaven worshippeth thee!).

V. As there must be faith, and hope, and trust in him.

See John iii. 15, 16; xiv. 1; xii. 44; Rom. x. 11; xv. 12; Acts xvi. 31; Eph. i. 12, 13, with Jer. xvii. 5. Cursed be the man that trusteth in man; whose heart departeth from the LORD! but blessed are all they that put their trust in him!

VI. As praise and thanksgiving are offered to him.

Daily shall he be praised (Ps. lxxii. 15). Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins, be glory and dominion for ever and ever! (Rev. i. 5, 6; compare Ps. cxlviii. 13). Let them praise the name of the LORD, for his name alone is excellent. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved. Saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of JESUS CHRIST (1 Cor. i. 2, and Rev. v. 11–13). Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive honour, and glory, and blessing—blessing and honour and glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever!—Salvation to our GOD, who sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. Blessing, &c. be unto our GOD for ever and ever. Amen! (Rev. vii. 10–12).

The HOLY GHOST is GOD.

This perhaps is only to be proved by implication and analogy.

I. In regard to title.

The Spirit of the LORD spake by me—the GOD of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake (2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3). That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the SON of GOD (Luke i. 35). She was found with child of the HOLY GHOST (Matt. i. 18). Why—lie to the HOLY GHOST—thou hast lied unto GOD (Acts v. 3, 4). Born of the Spirit (John iii. 6). Be born of GOD (1 John v. 4). Consider, too, no man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of GOD (Heb. v. 4). Pray the LORD of the harvest that he will send forth labourers (Matt. ix. 38).—The HOLY GHOST said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.—So they, being sent forth by the HOLY GHOST, departed (Acts xiii. 2, and 4). They shall be all taught of God (John vi. 45). Not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the HOLY GHOST teacheth (1 Cor. ii. 13). Ye are the temple of GOD (1 Cor. iii. 16). Your body is the temple of the HOLY GHOST (vi. 19). The hand of the LORD GOD fell there upon me, and he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head, and the Spirit lifted me up (Ezek. viii. 1–3).

See also the following passages, as respectively explaining each other: Luke ii. 26, with John xiv. 16, 17, and 1 Cor. xiv. 25.—Matt. iv. 1, with Luke xi. 4.—2 Cor. i. 3, with Acts ix. 31; John xiv. 26, &c.—1 Cor. ii. 11, with 14.—Matt. iv. 7, with Acts v. 9.—Gen. vi. 3, with 1 Pet. iii. 20.—Luke xi. 20, with Matt. xii. 28.—Acts iv. 24, 25, with i. 16,—and Luke i. 68, 70, with Acts xxviii. 25; and various others that might be noticed.

That the FATHER, under whatever names he is described and addressed, is GOD, is not disputable. That the SON is also GOD, it would seem much of rashness to doubt; since he was foretold by prophecy before his manifestation in the flesh, to be GOD, and appeared as GOD to the patriarchs.—GOD the SON, the angel and guardian of his people; for “GOD”—the Trinity in unity—“no man hath seen at any time.” That he must be a GOD who has such titles applied to him, such Divine attributes and offices, and to whom Divine worship is paid, the Arian allows, and the Socinian did not always deny; but that he is another—an inferior GOD, thus making more GODS than one, the voice of revelation expressly contradicts.

The Divinity of the SON is in fact proved both directly and incidentally; but the personality and Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT are less decisively expressed and treated of—apparently because the HOLY GHOST was never incarnate, nor appeared in a bodily form upon earth, and therefore we have not his frequent declarations, as we have those of the SON, nor direct addresses to him, as we have to the FATHER, to illustrate this point, but are left to gather the truth from the mouths of the prophets—the holy men of GOD, who spake as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST. From their preaching we sufficiently learn that he joined in the work of creation—that he dwells in the temple of the body, (1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19, 20; 2 Cor. vi. 16,) and the faithful are therefore dedicated to him—that he is eternal, omnipresent, infinite in power and knowledge—that obedience is due to him, and the sin against him considered unpardonable—and that he is to be worshipped is implied by the apostolic form of benediction. That the HOLY SPIRIT is a person is proved, independently of analogous reasoning, by a clear personal distinction between him and the FATHER and the SON.

The term GOD, when used in Holy Scripture in relation to the FATHER of our LORD CHRIST, is evidently used in a personal sense; and in such sense the Church also speaks of GOD the SON and GOD the HOLY GHOST. But when it is announced that there is but one GOD, though he is the FATHER of all, the term is used essentially, and comprehends the sacred three. The unity of the GODHEAD is so unequivocally declared in Holy Scripture, that we dare not deny it: but neither, it is presumed, can we safely deny that the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST are each of them GOD, without either impeaching the authenticity of most of the passages cited in this article, or making the word of GOD (itself) of none effect, by strifes of words, not to say profane and vain babblings.

GODFATHER. (See Sponsors.) He that holds the child at the baptismal font, and answers for him. The custom of godfathers or sponsors is very ancient in the Church. We find them mentioned by Tertullian, the Apostolical Constitutions, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. There were three sorts of sponsors: 1. For children. 2. For adult persons, who through sickness were not able to answer for themselves. 3. For such as could answer. The sureties for the first were obliged to be guardians of children’s Christian education; and indeed at first they were the parents of the children, and it was in extraordinary cases, either when the parent could not or would not, that others were admitted to be sureties. Sureties of the second sort were such as engaged to the Church that the adult person, who was grown incapable to answer for himself, did, when he was capable, desire to be baptized. But those of the third sort, who appeared with the person to be baptized, obliged themselves to admonish the person of his duty, as they had, before baptism, instructed him in it. Anciently deaconnesses were the sponsors for women, and the deacons were for the men. Parents were not forbidden to be sponsors for their children, before the Council of Mentz, A. D. 813. In the Church of Rome it is not lawful to marry any person to whom one stands related in this spiritual way; and this occasions numberless disputes, and numberless dispensations, which ring great sums of money to the exchequer of Rome.

Rubric. “There shall be for every male child to be baptized, two godfathers and one godmother; and for every female, one godfather and two godmothers.”

Canon 29. “No person shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to answer as godfather for his own child; nor any godfather or godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech, than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf. Neither shall any person be admitted godfather or godmother to any child at christening or confirmation, before the said person so undertaking hath received the holy communion.”

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

GOLDEN NUMBER. By referring to the astronomical tables at the beginning of the Prayer Book, it will be seen that a large proportion of them are simply calculations of the day on which Easter will fall in any given year, and, by consequence, the moveable feasts depending on it. In the early Church, it is well known that there were many and long disputes on this point, the Eastern and Western Churches not agreeing on the particular day for the celebration of this festival. To remove these difficulties, the Council of Nice came to a decision, from which the following rule was framed, viz. “Easter day is always the first Sunday after the full moon which happens upon or next after the 21st day of March; and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter day is the Sunday after.”

To determine the time of Easter in any year, it was therefore only necessary to find out the precise time of the above full moon, and to calculate accordingly. Now if the solar year exactly corresponded with the lunar, the time of the paschal moon would be liable to no variation, and Easter would fall on the same day of every year; but as the lunar year is really shorter than the solar, by eleven days, it follows that the paschal moon must, for a course of years, always happen at a different period in each successive year. If then the above rule be observed, the time of Easter may vary from the 22nd of March to the 25th of April, but somewhere within these limits it will always fall. Hence the adoption by the Council of Nice of the Metonic Cycle, by which these changes might be determined with tolerable accuracy. From the great usefulness of this cycle, its numbers were usually written on the calendar in letters of gold, from which it derived the name of Golden Number.

GOOD FRIDAY. The Friday in Passion week received this name from the blessed effects of our SAVIOUR’S sufferings, which are the ground of all our joy, and from those unspeakable good things he hath purchased for us by his death, whereby the blessed JESUS made expiation for the sins of the whole world, and by the shedding of his own blood, obtained eternal redemption for us. Among the Saxons it was called Long Friday; but for what reason, except for the long fastings and offices they then used, does not appear.

The commemoration of our SAVIOUR’S sufferings hath been kept from the very first age of Christianity, and was always observed as a day of the strictest fasting and humiliation; not that the grief and affliction they then expressed did arise from the loss they sustained, but from a sense of the guilt of the sins of the whole world, which drew upon our blessed Redeemer that painful and shameful death of the cross.

The Gospel for this day (besides its coming in course) is properly taken out of St. John rather than any other evangelist, because he was the only one that was present at the passion, and stood by the cross while others fled: and, therefore, the passion being as it were represented before our eyes, his testimony is read who saw it himself, and from whose example we may learn not to be ashamed or afraid of the cross of CHRIST. The Epistle proves, from the insufficiency of the Jewish sacrifices, that they only typified a more sufficient one, which the Son of GOD did, as on this day, offer up, and by one oblation of himself then made upon the cross, complete all the other sacrifices, (which were only shadows of this,) and made full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. In imitation of which Divine and infinite love, the Church endeavours to show her charity to be boundless and unlimited, by praying in one of the proper collects, that the effects of CHRIST’S death may be as universal as the design of it, namely, that it may tend to the salvation of all, Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics.

How suitable the proper psalms are to the day, is obvious to any one that reads them with a due attention: they were all composed by David in times of the greatest calamity and distress, and do most of them belong mystically to the crucifixion of our SAVIOUR; especially the twenty-second, which is the first for the morning, which was in several passages literally fulfilled by his sufferings, and, either part of it, or all, recited by him upon the cross. And for that reason (as St. Austin tells us) was always used upon that day by the African Church.

The first lesson for the morning is Genesis xxii., containing an account of Abraham’s readiness to offer up his son; thereby typifying that perfect oblation which was this day made by the SON of GOD; which was thought so proper a lesson for this occasion, that the Church used it upon this day in St. Austin’s time. The second lesson is St. John xviii., which needs no explanation. The first lesson for the evening contains a clear prophecy of the passion of CHRIST, and of the benefits which the Church thereby receives. The second lesson exhorts us to patience under afflictions, from the example of CHRIST, who suffered so much for us.—Wheatly.

The proper psalms and both the second lessons for Good Friday were added at the last review: and Genesis xxii., the first morning lesson, which was formerly read all through, limited to ver. 20.

GOOD WORKS. “Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of GOD’S judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to GOD in CHRIST, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.”—Article XII.

Good works are inseparable from our union with CHRIST; but then as effects of that union, not as causes or instruments. “We are created in CHRIST JESUS unto good works.” “Ye are become dead to the law by the body of CHRIST, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto GOD.” “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me—separate from me—ye can do nothing.” While, however, we regard good works as effects of our union with CHRIST, we must remember that they are an end also, nay, the end for which we have been united to him; and if so, a condition of the continuance of our union. “The branch cannot,” it is true, “bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine;” but yet its fruitfulness is the object of the care and pains which the vinedresser bestows upon it, and therefore a condition on which it is suffered to remain. “I am the true vine, and my FATHER is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” And as fruitfulness in good works is a condition on which we are suffered to continue in CHRIST, so also is it the measure according to which fresh supplies of grace are given; “every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” “Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance.” And yet further, which indeed follows upon the foregoing—our works are the rule by which GOD will judge us at the last day. These will declare, beyond all controversy, how far we have answered the end of our new creation; how far we have improved the talents intrusted to us; how far we are qualified and prepared for that kingdom, into which “there shall in nowise enter anything that defileth,” where “the people shall be all righteous,” where “the merciful” “shall receive mercy,” where “the pure in heart” “shall see GOD;” where the servant, who has so improved the pound intrusted to him as to have gained five pounds, shall be appointed to reign over five cities, and he who has gained ten pounds, shall have authority over ten cities.

It is one great secret of holy living to remember, that holiness is to be sought in and from CHRIST; to be wrought in us by his Spirit. We are too prone to overlook this great truth; to forget the strength which we have in CHRIST. We act as though, notwithstanding all that CHRIST hath done for us and in us, Christian virtue were nothing more than moral habits strengthened by exercise. Whereas, in truth, it takes a far higher range. It consists in habits doubtless; but they are habits of him who has been created anew in CHRIST JESUS; they are the habits of him who is one with CHRIST, and partaker of the Spirit of CHRIST; who has been planted together with CHRIST, in the likeness of his death, that he should be also in the likeness of his resurrection; and who has that blessed promise to cheer and encourage him in striving against sin. “Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”—Heurtley.

GOSPEL. (A word compounded of two Saxon words, god, “good,” and spell, a “message” or “tidings,” and so answering to the Greek εὐαγγέλιον.) GOD’S or Good Tidings—the glad tidings of the salvation wrought for man by the LORD JESUS CHRIST.

In a stricter sense, the word means each of the four histories of our SAVIOUR, written by the Evangelists: in a more confined sense still, it means that portion of Scripture which is read immediately after the Epistle in the ante-communion service, and which is taken from one of the four Gospels. A Gospel is also read in the Baptismal Service.

In the mediæval Church there were always peculiar ceremonies used in honour of the Gospel, as for instance, the bringing special lights even during day-time, placing the book of the Gospels reverently on the altar, incensing them, &c. In the Anglican Church we retain some vestiges of this in standing whilst the Gospel is read, and preceding it by the “Glory be to thee, O LORD,” a sentence retained traditionally from the ancient Church.

GOSPELLER. The priest who in the Communion Service reads the Gospel, standing at the north side of the altar. In some cathedrals one of the clergy is so designated, and has this special duty among others to perform. By the 24th Canon, in cathedral and collegiate churches, a Gospeller (as well as an Epistoler) is to assist the priest, vested in a cope. Gospellers are statutable members of the several cathedrals of the new foundation, and an officer so called still officiates at Durham, though the office has generally fallen into desuetude; and, contrary to the ancient universal usage of the Church, even when many priests and deacons are present, it is usual for but two ministers to attend at the first part of the Communion Service: the principal minister reading the Gospel. Strictly speaking, the deacon is the minister for the Gospel; since, in the ordering of deacons, authority is given them to “read the Gospel in the Church of God.”—Jebb. (See also Epistoler.)

GOSSIP. A sponsor for an infant in baptism, from GOD and sib, a Saxon word, which signifies kindred, affinity: kin in GOD.

GOTHIC. A general term for that style of mediæval architecture of which the pointed arch is the most prominent character. Together with Romanesque (an equally general term for that style of which the round arch is the most prominent character) it comprehends all mediæval ecclesiastical architecture in England. The substyles with their dates may be roughly stated as follows:

Romanesque— Saxon to 1060 Norman 1066–1145 Transition 1145–1190 Gothic— Early English 1190–1245 Geometrical 1245–1315 Decorated 1315–1360 Perpendicular 1360–1550

The more minute characteristics must be sought under these several names, and it must be obvious that the accounts given within the small limits we can devote to the subject must be very superficial. The subject may be pursued in a number of works now before the public, as, first in date and not last in importance, Rickman’s “Attempt to distinguish the Styles of Architecture in England,” and last in time, Sharpe’s “Seven Periods of English Architecture.” The same mode of architecture prevailed in Ireland and Scotland, with some characteristic distinctions.

GRACE. This word is used in a variety of senses in Holy Scripture: but the general idea, as it relates to GOD, is his free favour and love; as it relates to men, the happy state of reconciliation and favour with GOD, wherein they stand, and the holy endowments, qualities, or habits of faith, hope, and love, which they possess.

“We are accounted righteous before GOD, only for the merit of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST by faith, and not for our own works or deservings: wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.”—Article XI.

The most pious of those who lived under the Mosaic dispensation, often acknowledge the necessity of assistance from GOD. David prays to GOD to “open his eyes, to guide and direct him” (Ps. cxix. 18, 32–35); to “create in him a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within him.” (Ps. li. 10.) And Solomon says, that GOD “directeth men’s paths, and giveth grace to the lowly.” Even we, whose minds are enlightened by the pure precepts of the gospel, and influenced by the motives which it suggests, must still be convinced of our weakness and depravity, and of the necessity of Divine grace to regulate and strengthen our wills, and to co-operate with our endeavours after righteousness, as is clearly asserted in the New Testament. See the texts above cited, which sufficiently prove that we stand in need both of a preventing and of a co-operating grace; or, in the words of the Article, that “we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to GOD, without the grace of GOD by CHRIST preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.”

Dr. Nicholls, after quoting many authorities to show, that the doctrine of Divine grace always prevailed in the Catholic Church, adds, “I have spent perhaps more time in these testimonies than was absolutely necessary; but whatever I have done is to show, that the doctrine of Divine grace is so essential a doctrine of Christianity, that not only the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers assert it, but likewise that the Christians could not in any age maintain their religion without it; it being necessary, not only for the discharge of Christian duties, but for the performance of our ordinary devotions.” And this seems to have been the opinion of the compilers of our most excellent liturgy, in many parts of which both a preventing and co-operating grace is unequivocally acknowledged; particularly in the second collect for Evening Service, in the fourth collect at the end of the Communion Service, and in the collects for Easter Day, for the fifth Sunday after Easter, and for the 3rd, 9th, 17th, 19th, and 25th Sundays after Trinity.

This assistance of Divine grace is not inconsistent with the free agency of men (see Free Will): it does not place them under an irresistible restraint, or compel them to act contrary to their will. Though human nature is greatly depraved, yet every good disposition is not totally extinguished, nor is all power of right action entirely annihilated. Men may therefore make some spontaneous, though feeble, attempt to act conformably to their duty, which will be promoted and rendered effectual by the co-operation of GOD’S grace: or the grace of GOD may so far “prevent” our actual endeavours, as to awaken and dispose us to our duty; but yet not in such a degree, that we cannot withstand its influence. In either case our own exertions are necessary to enable us to “work out our own salvation,” but our “sufficiency” for that purpose is from GOD. The joint agency of GOD and man in the work of human salvation is pointed out in the following passage: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is GOD that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. ii. 12, 13); and therefore we may assure ourselves that free will and grace are not incompatible, though the mode and degree of their co-operation be utterly inexplicable.

GRACE AT MEALS. A short prayer, invoking a blessing upon our food, and expressive of gratitude to GOD for supplying our wants. The propriety of this act is evident from the traditional custom of the Church, and from the Divine command, as interpreted by this custom, (1 Thess. v. 18; 1 Cor. x. 31; 1 Tim. iv. 5,) and from the conduct of our Lord. (Mark viii. 6, 7.)

GRADUAL, or GRAIL. The antiphonary which, before the Reformation, supplied the anthems or verses for the beginning of the Communion, the Offertory, &c., was often called the Gradual, because some of the anthems were chanted on the steps (gradus) of the ambon or pulpit.

The Gradual is also an anthem sung in the Roman Church immediately after the Epistle.—Jebb.

GRAVE. The resting-place of a dead body. The spoliation and desecration of ancient sepulchres is as much an ecclesiastical offence as the robbing of a more recent grave; but where none feel themselves especially aggrieved, there are none to seek redress, and to bring offenders to justice. The law upon the subject seems to stand thus: A corpse once buried cannot legally be taken up to be deposited in another place, without a licence from the ordinary. But in case of a violent death the coroner may order the body to be disinterred, if it has been buried before he has had an opportunity of taking a view for the purposes of his inquest.

If the body, after it has been committed to the grave, be disturbed or removed, it is a subject of ecclesiastical cognizance: yet the common law also protects the corpse; for the taking up of dead bodies, for the purposes of dissection, is an indictable offence, as highly indecent, and contra bonos mores.

The property of things deposited with the dead, as the grave-clothes, &c., is in him that had property therein when the dead body was wrapped therewith, and the taking them is felony. The property in hatchments, or other ensigns of honour, is in the heir, or the person concerned in the hereditary distinction. (See Burial, and the list of acts of parliament appended to the word Cemetery.)

GREEK CHURCH. (See Church, Greek.)

GREGORIAN CHANT. (See Chant.) This general designation is given to the collection of chants compiled by Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, about A. D. 600. These chants have continued to be in use from that time to the present day, in the Western Church, and form the basis of our cathedral music. It is known that Gregory merely collected, arranged, and improved the chants which had already been used for centuries before his time. The most learned writers on the subject suppose that they are derived from those introduced by St. Ambrose into his church, at Milan, about A. D. 384. Great improvements, however, having been made in the science of music, subsequently to the time of St. Ambrose, Gregory took advantage of those improvements, and increased the number of ecclesiastical tones, (which somewhat resemble our modern keys,) from four to eight, of which number the Gregorian chants, properly so called, still consist. The four original tones are called authentic, the others plagal. All the eight are now used in some parts of the Greek Church, as in Russia, doubtless adopted from the West. They have been harmonized according to the more recently discovered laws of music, and thus harmonized possess a singular gravity, which character would alone justify their perpetual retention in the Church as the basis of church music.

The Gregorian chant is not limited to psalm chants; it includes the antiphons, versicles, graduals, &c., in short, all the hymns at the various services of the Romish Church. The eight tones, (which are by some multiplied to twelve,) are in fact so many scales, and all the Gregorian hymns or anthems must be written in one or other of these tones. The ancient Gregorian scale admitted no half notes, with the exception of B flat. The Psalm chants had considerable variation in each tone; these variations occurring in the second part of the chant: thus one tone may have three or four cadences; which in fact form so many separate chants. Much of the old English church music, since the Reformation, is based upon the Gregorian chant: though none of our standard musicians were ever servile followers of a system, which, though very venerable, is imperfect.

It may be as well to subjoin a simple rule for ascertaining the tones in which the Gregorian music is written in the old books. In the ancient breviaries and antiphonies, &c., the word EVOVAE frequently occurs, written under certain notes preceding the psalms appropriated to certain offices. This word contains the vowels of the concluding words of the Gloria Patri; viz. sEcVlOrVm AmEn: and by this is meant, that the notes placed above it form the second part of the chant to which the following psalm or psalms are sung: the first part being rarely written. Now to find the tone of the chant, we must take the first note of the Evovae, which is the dominant, or the prevailing, or reciting note of the chant (not the dominant as now technically understood by musicians): and we must take the last note of the Antiphon which follows the Psalm at length: and these two, according to the table here subjoined, give the tone of the chant: the first part of each variation in tone being, as before remarked, always the same; the second part being given in the Evovae. The Psalm Tones must be found out in one of the many movements of the Gregorian chant. Care must be taken not to take the last note of the abbreviated antiphon which precedes, but of that which follows, the psalm.

│ Final note, in the │ Dominant or reciting │ Antiphon. │ note, in the Evovae. 1st Tone │ D │ A 2nd Tone │ D │ F 3rd Tone │ E │ C 4th Tone │ E │ A 5th Tone │ F │ C 6th Tone │ F │ A 7th Tone │ G │ D 8th Tone │ G │ C

Of these tones the odd numbers are authentic, the even plagal. The authentic has always a relation to its plagal which follows, and has the same final note, though a different dominant.—Jebb.

GREY FRIARS. The Franciscans were so called from their grey clothing.

GUARDIAN OF THE SPIRITUALITIES. This is the person or persons in whom the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of any diocese resides, after the death or translation of a bishop. If the vacant see should be an archbishopric, then the dean and chapter are guardians. If a bishop, then the archdeacon of the province.

GURGOILE. (See Gargoyle.)

HABAKKUK, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. There is no mention in Scripture, either of the time when this prophet lived, or of the parents from whom he was descended. But as he prophesied the coming of the Chaldeans in the same manner as Jeremiah, it is conjectured that he lived at the same time.

The works of Habakkuk, which are indisputably his, are contained in three chapters. In these the prophet complains very pathetically of the disorders, which he observed in the kingdom of Judea. God reveals to him, that he would shortly punish them in a very terrible manner by the arms of the Chaldeans. He foretells the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, his metamorphosis, and death. He foretells that the vast designs of Jehoiakim would be frustrated. He speaks against a prince (probably the king of Tyre) who built with blood and iniquity; and he accuses another king (perhaps the king of Egypt) of having intoxicated his friend, in order to discover his nakedness. The third chapter is a song, or prayer to God, whose majesty the prophet describes with the utmost grandeur and sublimity of expression.

HADES. (From ἁ, privative, and ἰδειν, to see; the invisible state of the departed.) See Hell.

HAGGAI, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Haggai was born, in all probability, at Babylon, from whence he returned with Zerubbabel. It was this prophet, who, by command from GOD, exhorted the Jews, after their return from the captivity, to finish the rebuilding of the temple, which they had intermitted for fourteen years. His remonstrances had their effect; and to encourage them to proceed in the work, he assured them from GOD, that the glory of this latter house should be greater than the glory of the former house: which was accordingly fulfilled, when CHRIST honoured it with his presence; for, with respect to the building, this latter temple was nothing in comparison of the former.

We know nothing certain of Haggai’s death. The Jews pretend, that he died in the last year of the reign of Darius, at the same time with the prophets Zechariah and Malachi, and that thereupon the spirit of prophecy ceased among the children of Israel. Epiphanius asserts that he was buried at Jerusalem among the priests. The Greeks keep his festival on the 16th of December, and the Latins on the 4th of July—De Vita et Morte Prophetarum.

HAGIOGRAPHA, i.e. Holy Writings. (From ἅγιος, holy, and γραφὴ, writing.) A word of great antiquity in the Christian Church, and often used by St. Jerome, taken from the custom of the synagogues, by which the Old Testament was divided into three parts, viz. Moses’s law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; by which last he meant the Psalms, the Proverbs, Job, Ezra, Chronicles, Solomon’s Song, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. The Jews reckon the Book of Daniel and the Lamentations among the Hagiographa, and not among the Prophets, for which Theodoret blames them: but it matters not much, since they acknowledge those books, which they call Hagiographa, to be inspired by GOD, and part of the sacred canon, as well as those of the first and second order.

HAGIOSCOPE. In church architecture, a contrivance, whether by perforating a wall, or by cutting away an angle of it, by which an altar may be seen from some place in a church, or about it, from which it would be otherwise hid. There is a most curious example at Ryhall in Rutland, where there is (or rather was, for it is now blocked up) an opening in the west wall of the north aisle, by which the three altars in the chancel and two aisles were commanded by a person outside the church, though within what seems to have been a little oratory, (now entirely removed,) dedicated to S. Tibald.

Openings sometimes seem to command other points, and may then be well enough called “Squints.” At Hannington, in Northamptonshire, for instance, is one which seems intended to enable a person in the porch to see the approach of the minister from Walgrave, a parish very generally united under the same incumbency with Hannington.

HALF COMMUNION, or COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. (See Communion and Cup.) The withholding of the cup in the eucharist from the laity. This is the practice of the Church of Rome, and is one of those grievous errors in which that corrupt Church deviates from Catholicism. Not the slightest colour can be brought in its favour, as the Romanists themselves at the Council of Constance were forced to confess: the authority of the primitive Church is against them, as that council acknowledges; nor can they plead the authority of any one of the ancient liturgies. The Church of Rome then is, in this matter, singular and schismatical.

HALLELUJAH. (See Alleluia.)

HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE. A conference appointed by James I. at Hampton Court, in 1603, in order to settle the disputes between the Church and the Puritans. Nine bishops, and as many dignitaries of the Church, appeared on one side, and four Puritan ministers on the other. It lasted for three days. Of this conference the result was a few slight alterations in the liturgy; the baptizing of infants by women, which had been practised in our Church for many hundred years, was forbidden; “remission of sins” inserted in the rubric of absolution; confirmation termed “laying on of hands;” all the thanksgivings, except the general one, were inserted in the Prayer Book; to the catechism was annexed the whole of the latter portion, relative to the two sacraments; and some words were altered in the dominical lessons, with a view to a new translation of the sacred volume.

HATCHMENT; more properly ACHIEVEMENT. In heraldry, the whole armorial bearings of any person fully emblazoned, with shield, crest, supporters, &c. This word is used in particular for the emblazonment of arms hung up in churches, in memory of a gentleman of coat armour, or one of any higher degree. There was formerly much of religion in heraldry; and as the coat was assumed with a religious feeling, so was it at last restored to the sanctuary, in token of thankful acknowledgment to Almighty GOD, with whose blessing it had been borne.

HEARSE. A frame set over the coffin of any great person deceased, and covered with a pall: also the carriage in which corpses are carried to the grave.

HEATHEN. (From ἔθνη, nations, or Gentiles.) Pagans who worship false gods.

HEAVEN. That place where GOD affords a nearer and more immediate view of himself, and a more sensible manifestation of his glory, than in other parts of the universe. That it is a place as well as a state, is clear from John xiv. 2, 3, and from the existence of our LORD’S body there, and the bodies of Enoch and Elijah.

HEBDOMADARIUS. The priest whose weekly turn it was to perform the divine offices in cathedrals and colleges. In some foreign cathedrals it is the designation of a clergyman corresponding to our minor canons, &c. In the Scottish universities the name was given to one of the superior members, whose weekly turn it was to superintend the discipline of the students. The office was effectively exercised at St. Andrew’s, at least, till of late years.—Jebb.

HELL. (Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic Hele, Hela, a “cavern;” “concealed place;” “mansion of the dead.”) Two entirely different words in the original language of the New Testament are rendered in our version by the single word “hell.” The first of these is Hades, which occurs eleven times in the New Testament, and in every case but one is translated “hell.” Now Hades is never used to denote the place of final torment, the regions of the damned; but signifies “the place of departed spirits,” whether good or bad,—the place where they are kept until the day of judgment, when they shall be re-united to their bodies, and go each to his appointed destiny. The other word, Gehenna, signifies the place of torment,—the eternal abode of the wicked. At the time when our translation was made, and the Prayer Book compiled, the English word “hell” had a more extensive meaning than it has at present. It originally signified to cover over or conceal; and it is still used in this sense in several parts of England, where, for example, to cover a church or a house with a roof is to hell the building, and the person by whom it is done is called a hellier. But the word also denoted the place of future misery, and is accordingly used in that sense in the New Testament, as the translation of Gehenna; and in consequence of the changes which our language has experienced during the last 200 years, it is now restricted to this particular meaning. (See Gehenna.)

Bearing in mind, then, that Hades was translated by the word “hell,” for want of another more exactly corresponding with the original, the reader will perceive that the article in the Creed, “He descended into hell,” does not refer to the place of final misery; but to that general receptacle of all departed human souls, both penitent and impenitent, where they are reserved in a state of comparative enjoyment or misery, to wait the morning of the resurrection, when their bodies being united to their souls, they will be advanced to complete felicity or woe, in heaven or hell.

One great use of the system of catechising, as enjoined by the Church, is the opportunity it affords of inculcating upon the people such distinctions as these.

It was necessary that our LORD’S death should be attended with all those circumstances which mark the death of men. CHRIST was possessed of a human nature, both body and soul, besides his Divinity. The body of man at death sinks to the grave; and the soul goes to Hades, or the place of departed spirits. In like manner the body of our LORD was laid in the tomb, but his soul went to the general repository of human disembodied spirits, “the lower parts of the earth,” (Ps. xvi. 10; Eph. iv. 9, with Ps. lxiii. 9, and Isa. v. 14,) Hades, the place of separated souls, not Gehenna, the place of condemnation; because if it relate to the place of either bliss or misery, it must be the former, in consistence with the LORD’S promise to the penitent thief. (Luke xxiii. 43.)

Five different opinions have been entertained on this subject. First, that the word “descended” is to be taken metaphorically; implying only the efficacy of CHRIST’S death as to the souls departed. But this seems refuted by the passage, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,” (Ps. xvi. 10,) whereas the efficacy of our LORD’S death still continues.

Secondly, that the descent into hell signifies the suffering the torments of the damned; and this in the stead of those who otherwise must have endured them. But it is not to be believed that our LORD could suffer from the “worm that never dieth”—the remorse of conscience, and a sense of the continuance and consequences of the displeasure of GOD, and consequent despair; or that he who overcame the powers of hell could suffer under their vengeance. Nor, again, can he, in this article, be said by a metaphor to have felt the torments of hell, by this meaning only the greatest torments, because all that he felt which we know of, was antecedent to his death, and not afterwards. The torments of hell then cannot be here meant literally, because not supported by truth, nor figuratively, because not applicable.

Thirdly, that the word “soul” does in this passage mean the body, and “hell” merely the grave; and the same words, both in Hebrew and Greek, as used respectively by the psalmist and the apostle, and translated the “soul,” do elsewhere in the Scriptures mean the “body.” As in Numb. vi. 6; Lev. xxi. 11; and xxii. 4; and more particularly, Numb. xix. 11, and 13. And Ainsworth, whose translation is the most literal of any, so uses the word. And again, with respect to the word “hell;” in some passages it can mean nothing but the grave, and is so used by our translation, when Ainsworth uses the word “hell,” as in Gen. xxxvii. 35, and xlii. 38. This mode of explication too, connected with the following article, will fulfil the prophecy, “Thou shalt not leave my soul (body) in hell” (the grave).

Fourthly, that by the “soul” may be understood the nobler part distinguished from the body; or the whole person, both soul and body; or the living soul distinguished from the immortal spirit. And by “hell,” no place whatever, but merely the condition of men in death. But this explanation involves an entirely novel idea as to Hades, which was always understood as some place where the souls of men entered, whether this is in the earth, or out of it, or in whatever unknown part; and from which the Greeks considered those to be excluded who came to a premature death, or whose bodies lay unburied. And in addition, the descent into hell thus explained would be tautologous, meaning nothing more than the being dead, which the preceding article had declared.

Fifthly, and this is apparently the best explanation, as it was always the opinion entertained by the Church—that the “soul” was the spirit, or rational part, of CHRIST, that which the Jews could “not kill,” and “hell,” a place distinguished equally from earth and from heaven. The passage may then mean, “Thou shalt not suffer my soul,” when separated from the body, and carried to the place assigned, as other souls are, to continue there as theirs do, but shalt, after a short interval only, reunite it to my body. That this was an opinion general in the Church, is proved, not only by the direct testimony of the Fathers, but by their arguments on the subject in answer to heretics.

They all fully agreed in a real descent of the soul of CHRIST into the place of souls departed; though they differed as to the persons whom he descended to visit, and the end for which he went. Some of them considered Hades, or “hell,” as the common receptacle of souls, both of the just and the unjust, and then thought that the soul of CHRIST went unto those only who had departed in the true faith and fear of GOD. But to this many could not agree, not thinking that Hades could ever, in Scripture, be taken for the place of happiness. And as to the end, those who held the former opinion of the common receptacle, imagined that CHRIST went unto the faithful to dissolve the power by which they were detained, and translate them into heaven. But to this change of place or condition many objected, conceiving that the souls of men shall not enter into heaven till after the general resurrection.

Some there were who, conceiving that this place did not include the blessed, imagined that the object of our LORD’S going into the place of torment, was to deliver some of the suffering souls, and translate them to a place of happiness. That this was done by preaching the gospel to them, that they after death might have an opportunity of receiving him, and then pass with him from death to life.

So that they all imagined that the soul of CHRIST descended into hell to preach the gospel to the spirits there, but differed as to whether it was to those who before believed, that they might now receive him; or to those who had before rejected him, that they might yet believe on him.

But there seem insurmountable objections both to the opinion that he preached to the faithful, for they were not “disobedient,” (as “in the days of Noah,”) nor could they need a publication of the gospel after the death of CHRIST, by virtue of which they were accepted while they lived; and to that, that he preached to the wicked, for they were not proper objects, or likely to be persuaded. The effect too of the preaching may be denied. There is no repentance in the grave, nor any passing the “great gulf” of separation. Again, with respect to the faithful, it is not certain that their souls were in a place where CHRIST would descend; or that they are now in another and better place than they were at first; or that CHRIST did descend into such place for such purpose; or that such effect was produced at such a time.

There is another opinion that has obtained, and perhaps more in our own Church, that CHRIST descended into hell to triumph over Satan and his powers in their own dominions, principally grounded on Col. ii. 11–15; Eph. iv. 8, 9. But these passages are not conclusive; and the argument seems inconsistent in those who object to the opinion, that the souls of the wicked have been released, or those of the saints removed.

The sound conclusion as to the whole, and what our belief might be, is, perhaps, first, as to fact, that the soul of CHRIST, separated from his body by death, did go into the common place of departed spirits, in order that he might appear, both alive and dead, as perfect man. All that was necessary for our redemption, by way of satisfaction, was effected on the cross. The exhibition of what was there merited, was effected by his resurrection; and between these, he satisfied the law of death. Secondly, as to the effect. By the descent of CHRIST into the regions of darkness, the souls of believers are kept from the torments which are there. As the grave and hell had no power over him, the “head,” so neither shall it have over “the members.” By his descent he freed us from all fear, by his resurrection and ascension he has secured our hope; and thus through “death, destroyed him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil.”

As he “was delivered for our offences,” so was he “raised again for our justification.” (Rom. iv. 25.) If this had not taken place, our “faith” would have been “vain;” we should have been “yet in our sins,” (1 Cor. xv. 14, 17,) for as we are “buried with him in baptism, we are quickened together with him,” (Col. ii. 12, 13,) and “begotten again to a lively hope,” by his “resurrection from the dead;” if “by him we believe in GOD that raised him up from the dead,” (1 Pet. i. 3, 21,) and “walk in newness of life.” (Rom. vi. 4; viii. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14; Eph. i. 19, 20; Heb. xiii. 20.) Therefore, “on the third day, he rose again from the dead, a living body,” (Luke xxiv. 39; John xx. 20, 27,) “quickened by the spirit,” (1 Pet. iii. 18,) and raised by himself, (John x. 18; ii. 19,) as this was typified in Isaac, “received” again by his father, as “in (or for) a figure,” (Heb. xi. 19,) and by the waved sheaf, the dedicated “first-fruits of the harvest.” (Lev. xxiii. 10, 11.) This, too, on the third day—the “first day of the week,” the Christian “sabbath,” (Matt, xxviii. 1; xx. 19, (thenceforward called “the LORD’S day,” Rev. i. 10,) John xx. 26; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2,) according to the deliverance of his type Jonah. (Matt. xii. 39, 40.) As this was frequently predicted by himself, (Matt. xii. 39, 40, and xvi. 21; xvii. 9; John ii. 19, 21,) confirmed by his enemies, (Matt. xxvi. 61; xxvii. 63; Mark xv. 29,) and by the angel, (Matt. xxviii. 6, 7, 17,) and the truth of it proved also by the precautions of his enemies, (Matt, xxviii. 13–15,) by his showing himself to his disciples several times, and “many days,” (John xx. 19, 26; xxi. 14; Acts xiii. 31,) as to “witnesses chosen before of GOD,” (Acts x. 41,) appointed expressly to bear testimony to this great truth, “unto the uttermost parts of the earth,” (Acts i. 8, 22; ii. 24, 31, 32; iii. 15; iv. 33; v. 32; x. 40; 1 Cor. xv. 15,) as was “also the HOLY GHOST.” (Acts v. 32, and to others, 1 Cor. xv. 4–8.) Which truth, that “GOD hath raised him from the dead,” is to be received by “all men” as an “assurance” that “GOD will judge the world in righteousness by him.” (Acts xvii. 30–32.)

HERESIARCH. A leader in heresy.

HERESY. This word is derived from the Greek, αἵρεσις, a choice, and it means an arbitrary adoption, in matters of faith, of opinions at variance with the doctrines delivered by CHRIST and the apostles, and received by the Catholic Church. At the same time we may remark, that it is generally agreed that the opinion must be pertinaciously and obstinately held, in order to constitute formal heresy. And if there be a legitimate doubt in a controversy which of the two contrary doctrines is stated in Scripture and received by the Church, either may be held without heresy. It is obvious, also, that mere ignorance, or a temporary error in ignorance, is altogether different from heresy.

In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, an act of parliament was passed to enable persons to try heretics, and the following directions were given for their guidance:—“And such persons to whom the queen shall by letters patent under the great seal give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual, shall not in anywise have power to adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the canonical Scriptures, or by some of the first four general councils, or by any other general council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be judged or determined to be heresy by the high court of parliament, with the assent of the clergy in their convocation.”

Heresies began very early in the Christian Church. Eusebius fixes the beginning of most of them to the reign of the emperor Adrian. And yet it is certain, that Simon Magus had published his errors before that time, and set up a sect, which gave rise to most of the ancient heresies.

The laws, both of the Church and State, were very severe against those who were adjudged to be heretics. Those of the State, made by the Christian emperors from the time of Constantine, are comprised under one title, De Hæreticis, in the Theodosian Code. The principal of them are, 1. The general note of infamy affixed to all heretics in common. 2. All commerce forbidden to be held with them. 3. The depriving them of all offices of profit and dignity. 4. The disqualifying them to dispose of their estates by will, or receive estates from others. 5. The imposing on them pecuniary mulcts. 6. The proscribing and banishing them. 7. The inflicting corporal punishment on them, such as scourging, &c., before banishment. Besides these laws, which chiefly affected the persons of heretics, there were several others, which tended to the extirpation of heresy: such as, 1. Those which forbade heretical teachers to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately. 2. Those which forbade heretics to hold public disputations. 3. Such laws as prohibited all heretical meetings and assemblies. 4. Those which deny to the children of heretical parents their patrimony and inheritance, unless they return to the Church. And, 5. Such laws as ordered the books of heretics to be burned. There were many other penal laws made against heretics, from the time of Constantine to Theodosius junior and Valentinian III. But the few already mentioned may be sufficient to give an idea of the rigour with which the empire treated such persons as held, or taught, opinions contrary to the faith of the Catholic Church, whose discipline towards heretics was no less severe than the civil laws.

For, 1. The Church was accustomed to pronounce a formal anathema or excommunication against them. Thus the Council of Nice ends her creed with an anathema against all those who opposed the doctrine there delivered. And there are innumerable instances of this kind to be found in the volumes of the Councils. 2. Some canons debarred them from the very lowest privileges of Church communion, forbidding them to enter into the church, so much as to hear the sermon, or the Scriptures read in the service of the catechumens. But this was no general rule; for liberty was often granted to heretics to be present at the sermons, in hopes of their conversion; and the historians tell us, that Chrysostom by this means brought over many to acknowledge the Divinity of CHRIST, whilst they had liberty to come and hear his sermons. 3. The Church prohibited all persons, under pain of excommunication, to join with heretics in any religious offices. 4. By the laws of the Church, no one was to eat, or converse familiarly with heretics; or to read their writings, or to contract any affinity with them: their names were to be struck out of the Diptychs, or sacred registers of the Church; and, if they died in heresy, no psalmody, or other solemnity, was to be used at their funeral. 5. The testimony of heretics was not to be taken in any ecclesiastical cause whatever. These are the chief ecclesiastical laws against heretics.

As to the terms of penance imposed upon relenting heretics, or such as were willing to renounce their errors, and be reconciled to the Church, they were various, and differed according to the canons of different councils, or the usages of different Churches. The Council of Eliberis (soon after A. D. 300) appoints ten years’ penance, before repenting heretics are admitted to communion. The Council of Agde (A. D. 506) contracted this term into that of three years. The Council of Epone (A. D. 517) reduced it to two years only.

The ancient Christian Church made a distinction between such heretics as contumaciously resisted the admonitions of the Church, and such as never had any admonition given them, for none were reputed formal heretics, or treated as such, till the Church had given them a first and second admonition, according to the apostle’s rule.

The principal sects of heretics, which disturbed the peace of the Church, sprung up in the first six centuries: most of the heresies, in after ages, being nothing but the old ones new vamped, or revived. The following table may serve to give the reader a compendious view of the most remarkable of the ancient heresies.

CENTURY I.

1. The Simonians, or followers of Simon Magus; who maintained that the world was created by angels; that there is no resurrection of the body; that women ought to be in common, &c.

2. Cerinthians and Ebionites, followers of Cerinthus and Ebion; who denied the Divinity of our SAVIOUR, and blended the Mosaical ceremonies with Christianity, &c.

3. The Nicolaites, followers of Nicolas, deacon of Antioch; who allowed the promiscuous use of women, &c., alluded to by St. John in Rev. ii. 6, 15.

CENTURY II.

4. The Basilidians, followers of Basilides of Alexandria; who espoused the heresies of Simon Magus, and denied the reality of our SAVIOUR’S crucifixion, &c.

5. The Carpocratians, followers of Carpocrates; who, besides adhering to the heresies of Simon Magus, rejected the Old Testament, and held that our SAVIOUR was but a mere man, &c.

6. The Valentinians, followers of Valentinus; who corrupted the Christian doctrine with the Pythagorean and Platonic notions, &c.

7. The Gnostics; so called from their pretences to superior knowledge. The term Gnostics seems to have been a general name for many of the earliest heretics. (See Gnostics.)

8. The Nazarenes; who ingrafted the law of Moses on Christianity, &c.

9. The Millenarians or Chiliasts; so called, because they expected to reign with CHRIST, a thousand years, upon the earth.

10. The Cainites; a branch of the Valentinians, but particularly remarkable for paying a great regard to Cain and all the wicked men mentioned in the Scripture, &c.

11. The Sethians; who held that Seth, the son of Adam, was the Messiah.

12. The Quartodecimans; who observed Easter on the fourteenth day of the first month, in conformity to the Jewish custom of keeping the Passover.

13. The Cerdonians, followers of Cerdon; who held two contrary principles, denied the resurrection of the body, and threw the Four Gospels out of the canon of Scripture.

14. The Marcionites, followers of Marcion; who held three principles, denied the resurrection of the body, and declaimed against marriage, &c.

15. The Cataphrygians, or Montanists; who baptized the dead, and held Montanus to be the HOLY GHOST, &c.

16. The Encratites, or Tatianists, followers of Tatian; who boasted of an extraordinary continency, and condemned marriage, &c.

17. The Alogians; so called, because they denied the Divinity of the Word, and rejected St. John’s Gospel, which particularly asserts it.

18. The Artotyrites; so called, because they offered bread and cheese in the eucharist.

19. The Angelics; so called, because they worshipped angels.

CENTURY III.

20. The Monarchici, or Patripassians, followers of Praxeas; who denied a plurality of persons in the Trinity, and affirmed that our SAVIOUR was GOD the Father.

21. The Arabici; who believed that the soul dies, or sleeps, till the day of judgment, and then rises with the body.

22. The Aquarians; who used only water in the eucharist.

23. The Novatians; who would not allow those, who had lapsed in time of persecution, to be restored, upon repentance, to communion.

24. The Origenists, followers of Origen; who, among other things, held that the devil, and all the damned, will at last be saved.

25. The Melchisedechians: who held Melchisedech to be the Messiah.

26. The Sabellians, followers of Sabellius; who denied the Trinity, and affirmed that the distinction of persons in the GODHEAD was merely nominal, and founded only upon a diversity of attributes, &c.

27. The Manicheans, followers of Manes; who held that two opposite principles reigned over the world, the one good, the other bad, &c.

CENTURY IV.

28. The Arians, followers of Arius, a priest of Alexandria; who believed the FATHER and the SON not to be of the same nature, substance, or essence, and that there was a time when the SON was not, &c.

29. The Colluthians, followers of Colluthus; who confounded the evil of punishment with the evil of sin.

30. The Macedonians; who denied the Divinity of the HOLY GHOST.

31. The Agnoëtæ; so called, because they denied the certainty of the Divine prescience.

32. The Apollinarians, followers of Apollinaris; who asserted that our SAVIOUR, at his incarnation, assumed a human body without a soul, and that the Word supplied the place of a soul, &c.

33. The Timotheans; who held, that our SAVIOUR was incarnate only for the benefit and advantage of our bodies.

34. The Collyridians; so called, because they made a kind of goddess of the Blessed Virgin, and offered cakes to her.

35. The Seleucians, followers of Seleucus; who held that the Deity was corporeal; and that the matter of the universe was co-eternal with GOD.

36. The Priscillianists, followers of Priscillian, a Spanish bishop; who held all the errors of the Gnostics and Valentinians.

37. The Anthropomorphites; so called, because they ascribed a body to GOD, understanding literally those passages of Scripture which speak of GOD as having hands, eyes, feet, &c.

38. The Jovinianists, followers of Jovinian; who denied the virginity of Mary.

39. The Messalians; who chiefly pretended to prophecy.

40. The Bonosians, followers of Bonosus; who held that JESUS CHRIST was the Son of GOD only by adoption.

CENTURY V.

41. The Pelagians, followers of Pelagius; who denied the necessity of Divine grace, in order to salvation, &c.

42. Nestorians, followers of Nestorius; who distinguished our blessed SAVIOUR into two persons, the one Divine, the other human.

43. The Eutychians, followers of Eutyches; who fell into the opposite error, and held, that there was but one nature in JESUS CHRIST.

44. The Theopaschites, followers of Petrus Fullo, bishop of Antioch; so called, because they affirmed that all the three persons in the Trinity were incarnate, and suffered upon the cross.

CENTURY VI.

45. The Predestinarians; so called, because they held that the salvation or damnation of men is pre-ordained, and that no man is saved or damned by his works.

46. The Apthartodocetes, or Incorruptibilists; so called, because they held that our SAVIOUR’S body was incorruptible, and exempt from passion.

47. A second sect of Agnoëtæ; so called, because they held that our blessed SAVIOUR, when upon earth, did not know the day of judgment.

48. The Monotheletes; who held that there was but one will in JESUS CHRIST.

These were the principal sects of heretics, which, in those early ages, infested the Christian Church. The succeeding ages produced a great variety of heretics likewise; as the Gnosimachi and Lampetians, in the seventh century; the Agonyclites in the eighth; the Berengarians, Simoniacs, and Vecilians, in the eleventh; the Bogomiles, in the twelfth; the Fratricelli and Beguards, in the thirteenth; to enumerate all which would be both tedious and uninteresting.—Broughton.

HERETIC. Dr. Johnson, in his dictionary, defines a heretic to be, “one who propagates his private opinions in opposition to the Catholic Church;” and the Catholic or universal Church, in the second general council, has pronounced those to be heretics “who, while they pretend to confess the sound faith, have separated and held meetings contrary to our canonical bishops.”—Conc. Const. Can. 6.

A man may be erroneous in doctrine and yet not a heretic; for heresy is a pertinacious adherence to an opinion when it is known that the Church has condemned it. (See the preceding article.)

Although the Scripture only is our guide, there are certain points of disputable doctrine on which the Church Universal has decided, e. g. the doctrine of the Trinity; and he who refuses “to hear the Church” on these points, is held a heretic by the Church Universal. There are certain points on which our own Church has decided, e. g. the doctrine of transubstantiation, and he who holds this doctrine is regarded as a heretic by the Church of England. For those who do not defer to the Church, to pronounce any one a heretic who professes to take the Bible for his guide, is an inconsistency which can only be accounted for by the existence, on the part of the offender, of a very intolerant and tyrannical disposition.

HERMENEUTÆ. (From ἑρμηνεύω, to interpret.) Persons in the ancient Church, whose business it was to render one language into another, as there was occasion, both in reading the Scriptures, and in the homilies that were made to the people; an office which was very important in those churches where the people spoke different languages, as in Palestine, where some spoke Syriac, others Greek; and in Africa, where some spoke the Latin, and others the Punic tongue.

HERMENEUTICS. (From ἑρμηνεύω, to interpret.) The principles and practice of translation and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures.—See Hartwell Horne’s Introduction and Ernesti’s Institutes.

HERMITAGES were cells constructed in private and solitary places, for single persons, or for small communities, and were sometimes annexed to larger religious houses.

HETERODOX. Contrary to the faith or doctrine established in the true Church.

HEXAPLA. A book containing the Hebrew text of the Bible, written in Hebrew and Greek characters, with the translations of the Septuagint, of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, in six several columns. There was added to it a fifth translation, found at Jericho, without the author’s name; and a sixth, named Nicopolitanum, because found at Nicopolis: Origen joined to it a translation of the Psalms, but still the book retained the name of Hexapla, because the fifth and sixth translations did not extend to the whole Bible; and so the same book of Origen had but six columns in divers places, eight in some, and nine in the Psalms. Others are of opinion that the two columns of the Hebrew text were not reckoned; and that the translation of the Psalms was not to be considered so as to give a new name to the book. When the edition contained only the translations of the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, it was called Tetrapla, and the name of Octapla was sometimes given to the eight versions, that is, to the collections containing the translations of Jericho and Nicopolis. Ruffinus, speaking of this elaborate work, affirms that Origen undertook it because of the continual controversies between the Jews and Christians: the Jews citing the Hebrew, and the Christians the Septuagint, in their disputes, this father was willing to let the Christians understand how the Jews read the Bible; and to this end, he laid the versions of Aquila, and some other Greek translations, before them, which had been made from the Hebrew; but few people being able to buy so great a work, Origen undertook to abridge it, and for that purpose published a version of the Septuagint, to which he added some supplements, taken out of Theodotion’s translation, in the places where the Septuagint had not rendered the Hebrew text; and which supplements were marked with an asterisk. He added also a small line like a spit, where the Septuagint had something that was not in the Hebrew text. The loss of the Hexapla is one of the greatest which the Church has sustained. But a few fragments remain, published by Montfauçon, in 1713; and by Bahrdt, (an abridgment, and not a very skilful one, of the former,) in 1769.

HIERARCHY. (See Bishops.) A designation equally applied to the ranks of celestial beings in the Jerusalem above, and to the apostolic order of the ministry in the Church below. In reference to the latter, it is an error to suppose that it necessarily implies temporal distinction, wealth, splendour, or any other adjuncts with which the ministry may, in certain times and countries, have been distinguished. These are mere accidents, which prejudice has identified with the being of a hierarchy, but from which no just inference can be drawn against the inherent spiritual dignity of the Christian priesthood.

HIGH PRIEST. The highest person in the divinely appointed ecclesiastical polity of the Jews. To him in the Christian Church answers the bishop, the presbyter answering to the priest, and the deacon to the Levite.

HISTORIANS, ECCLESIASTICAL. Those writers who record the acts and monuments of the Christian Church. After the evangelical historians, the most distinguished is Hegesippus, who lived principally in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 161–180). He wrote five books of ecclesiastical history, called Commentaries of the Acts of the Church, wherein he described the character of the holy apostles, their missions, &c., the remarkable events in the Church, and the several heresies, schisms, and persecutions which had afflicted it from our LORD’S death to the writer’s own times. All the writings of Hegesippus are now lost. Next follows Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, a pupil of Pamphilus, on which account he is often called Eusebius Pamphili. He wrote an ecclesiastical history in ten books, comprising a history of the Church from our LORD’S birth to the conversion of Constantine the Great, which he compiled chiefly from the commentary of Hegesippus. St. Jerome and Nicephorus derive the materials of their history from Eusebius. The histories written by Socrates, Theodoret, and Sozomen, relate to their own times only. These are the sources from which all modern historians of the early Church derive their materials.

HOLY-DAY. The day of some ecclesiastical festival. The rubric after the Nicene Creed directs that “the curate shall then declare to the people what holy-days or fasting days are in the week following to be observed.”

Canon 64. “Every parson, vicar, or curate shall, in his several charge, declare to the people every Sunday, at the time appointed in the Communion Book, whether there be any holy-days or fasting days the week following. And if any do hereafter willingly offend herein, and, being once admonished thereof by his ordinary, shall again omit that duty, let him be censured according to law until he submit himself to the due performance of it.”

Canon 13. “All manner of persons within the Church of England shall from henceforth celebrate and keep the LORD’S day, commonly called Sunday, and other holy-days, according to GOD’S will and pleasure, and the orders of the Church of England prescribed on that behalf: that is, in hearing the word of GOD read and taught, in private and public prayers, in acknowledging their offences to GOD, and amendment of the same, in reconciling themselves charitably to their neighbours where displeasure has often been, in oftentimes receiving the communion of the body and blood of CHRIST, in visiting of the poor and sick, using all godly and sober conversation.”

Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and reverently upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book of Common Prayer, and their eves.”

HOLY GHOST. (See Procession.) The third Person of the adorable Trinity.

“The HOLY GHOST, proceeding from the FATHER and the SON, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the FATHER and the SON, very and eternal GOD.”—Article V.

The name Ghost, or Gast, in the ancient Saxon, signifies a spirit, to which the word holy is applied, as signifying a communication of the Divine holiness. Having been baptized “in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST,” we cannot say with the ignorant disciples, that “we have not so much as heard whether there be any HOLY GHOST” (Acts xix. 2); we are therefore called upon to believe in the HOLY GHOST as we do in the FATHER and the SON; and for our authority in considering him to be a person as well as the others, we have not only the analogy of faith, but sufficient evidence in holy writ.

First, he is plainly distinguishable from the others; from the FATHER, as proceeding from him, (John xv. 26,) and from the FATHER and the SON, in being sent by one from the other; “The Comforter, whom I,” says our LORD, “will send unto you from the FATHER;” “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” (John xv. 26; xvi. 7.) This was the SPIRIT promised before of the FATHER. (Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 25, with John xiv. 16; Acts i. 4; ii. 33.) He is sometimes termed “the SPIRIT of the SON,” as well as of the FATHER, (Gal. iv. 6,) and is given by the FATHER, (Eph. i. 17,) and sent in his SON’S name, (John xiv. 26,) as at other times by the SON. (John xv. 26; xvi. 7; xx. 21, 22.)

Secondly, such properties, attributes, and acts are ascribed to him as are only applicable to a person. He is spoken of in formal opposition to evil spirits, who are clearly represented as persons (1 Sam. xvi. 14; 2 Chron. xviii. 20, 21); and if expressions are used not exactly suitable to our conceptions of a person, this may well be allowed without its making him a mere quality or attribute. When GOD is said to “give” the HOLY GHOST “to them that obey him,” (Acts v. 32,) it may be compared with similar passages respecting the SON: “GOD so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten SON,” &c., (John iii. 16,) in conformity to the prophecy, “Unto us a SON is given.” (Isa. ix. 6.)

Thirdly, he is also truly GOD, as is proved from the titles given to him by fair implication, (Acts v. 3, 4; Luke i. 35; and see 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3,) and the attributes of GOD, (Job xxxiii. 4; Ps. cxxxix. 7; Isa. xlviii. 16; with Acts xiii. 2; xx. 28; Mark xiii. 11; Rom. viii. 14; xv. 13, 19; 1 Cor. ii. 11,) and he is in two grand instances united to the FATHER and the SON, in perfect equality,—the form of baptism, by which we are admitted into the Church of GOD, (Matt. xxviii. 19,) and the apostolic benediction, the common Christian salutation. (2 Cor. xiii. 14.)

As he is the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, “the SPIRIT of holiness,” (Rom. i. 4,) so is he the cause of all holiness in man. That as the SON, by his sacrifice, put us in the way of salvation, (John iii. 16,) so must the HOLY SPIRIT co-operate in sealing “us unto the day of redemption,” through his “sanctification,” and “belief of the truth,” (Rom. viii. 16; 2 Cor. i. 22; v. 5; Gal. vi. 8; Eph. i. 13, 14; iv. 30; Phil. i. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Tit. iii. 5,) according as he has been promised. (Deut. xxix. 4; Jer. xxxii. 40; Ezek. xxxvi. 27; John vi. 44.) And this he does by regenerating us at baptism, (Matt. iii. 11; John iii. 5; Gal. iv. 29; Tit. iii. 5,) and making us the “sons of GOD,” (Rom. viii. 14–16; Gal. iv. 6,) and thus uniting us to our “head,” (1 Cor. vi. 17; xii. 12, 13; Eph. iv. 4; 1 John iii. 24,) and by instructing us in our duty, (Prov. i. 23; Ps. clxiii. 10; Isa. lix. 21: 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; xii. 3; 2 Cor. iii. 3; Gal. v. 16, 25,) illuminating the understanding, (Neh. ix. 20; Isa. xxxii. 15, 16; Ezek, xxxvi. 27; Micah iii. 8; Rom. viii. 2, 5; Eph. i. 17, 18; 1 John iii. 24; iv. 13,) disposing the will, (Heb. iii. 7, 8; 1 Pet. i. 2, 22,) settling us in the faith and love of GOD, (Rom. v. 5; 2 Cor. iv. 13; 2 Tim. i. 7,) giving us power to obey, (Zech. iv. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Eph. iii. 16,) helping us in prayer, (Zech. xii. 10; Rom. viii. 26; 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Jude 20,) and sanctifying us. (Rom. xv. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. v. 16.) And as his very name, “the Comforter,” implies, he gives consolation and joy. (Acts ix. 31; Rom. xiv. 17; xv. 13; Gal. v. 22; 1 Thess. i. 6.)

It is necessary, then, that we believe in the HOLY GHOST, as having been baptized to GOD in his name; and as we would receive the apostolic benediction, (2 Cor. xiii. 14; Phil. ii. 1,) and enjoy the kingdom of GOD on earth, which is “righteousness, and peace, and joy,” in him. (Rom. xiv. 17; Acts xiii. 52.)

HOLY TABLE, (ἅγια τράπεζα.) (See Altar.) The altar on which the appointed memorials of the death of CHRIST, namely, the bread and wine, are presented before GOD, as an oblation of thanksgiving, is called the LORD’S table, or the holy table; because his worshippers do there, as his guests, eat and drink these consecrated elements, in faith, to be thereby fed and nourished unto eternal life, by the spiritual food of his most precious body and blood.

HOLY THURSDAY. The day of our LORD’S ascension. (See Ascension Day.)

HOLY WATER. In the Romish Church, water blessed with an appropriate service by the priest, and placed in a shallow basin, called the holy water stoup, at the entrance of the Church. Its primary use was, that the hands of the worshippers might be washed, and “pure hands lifted up in prayer;” afterwards it symbolized their purification from defilement before engaging in prayer. The modern Romanists forget this, and, as if they thought that some intrinsic benefit resulted from the physical application of the holy water, independent of its mystic meaning, use it both on entering and leaving a church.

So many superstitions had become connected with the use of holy water, that it was discontinued at the Reformation.

HOLY WEEK. (See Passion Week.) The Passion week—the last week in Lent, in which the Church commemorates the cross and passion of our blessed and only SAVIOUR.

HOMILIES. (From ὁμιλία, a sermon or discourse, delivered in a plain manner, so as to be understood by the common people.) The Homilies of the Church of England are two books of plain discourses, composed at the time of the Reformation, and appointed to be read in churches, on “any Sunday or holy-day, when there is no sermon.” The first volume of them was set out in the beginning of King Edward the Sixth’s reign in 1547, having been composed (as it is thought) by Archbishop Cranmer and Bishops Ridley and Latimer, when a competent number of ministers of sufficient abilities to preach in a public congregation was not to be found. It was reprinted in 1560. The second book appeared in 1563, having been printed the year before, (see Strype’s Life of Parker,) in the reign of Elizabeth. Bishop Jewell is supposed to have had a great share in its composition. In the first book, the homily on “Salvation” was probably written by Cranmer, as also those on “Faith” and “Good Works.” The homilies on the “Fear of Death,” and on the “Reading of Scripture,” have likewise been ascribed to the archbishop. That on the “Misery of Mankind,” which has sometimes been attributed to him, appears in Bishop Bonner’s volume of Homilies, A. D. 1555, with the name of “Jo. Harpesfield” attached to it. The homilies on “the Passion,” and on “the Resurrection,” are from Taverner’s “Postills,” published in 1540. Internal evidence arising out of certain homely expressions, and peculiar forms of ejaculation, the like to which appear in Latimer’s sermons, pretty clearly betray the hand of the Bishop of Worcester to have been engaged in the homily against “Brawling and Contention;” the one against “Adultery” may be safely given to Thomas Becon, one of Cranmer’s chaplains, in whose works, published in 1564, it is still to be found; of the rest nothing is known, but by the merest conjecture. In the second book, no single homily of them all has been appropriated.

All members of the Church of England agree that the Homilies “contain a godly and wholesome doctrine;” but they are not agreed as to the precise degree of authority to be attached to them. In them the authority of the Fathers, of the first six general Councils, and of the judgments of the Church generally, the holiness of the primitive Church, the secondary inspiration of the Apocrypha, the sacramental character of marriage and other ordinances, regeneration in holy baptism, and the real presence in the eucharist, are asserted. To some of these assertions ultra-Protestants of course demur.

By this approbation of the two books of Homilies it is not meant that every passage of Scripture, or argument that is made use of in them, is always convincing; or that every expression is so severely worded, that it may not need a little correction or explanation: all that we profess about them is only that they “contain a godly and wholesome doctrine.” This rather relates to the main importance and design of them, than to every passage in them. Though this may be said concerning them, that, considering the age wherein they were written, the imperfection of our language, and some inferior defects, they are two very extraordinary books. Some of them are better writ than others, and are equal to anything that has been writ upon those subjects since that time. Upon the whole matter, every one, who subscribes the Articles, ought to read them, otherwise he subscribes a blank; he approves a book implicitly, and binds himself to read it, as he may be required, without knowing anything concerning it. This approbation is not to be stretched so far, as to carry in it a special assent to every particular in that whole volume: but a man must be persuaded of the main of the doctrine that is taught in them.—Bp. Burnet.

The Church requires our assent and approbation to the Articles, and so in like manner to the Rubric, to be expressed in a different degree and manner from that in which we express our assent to the Homilies and the Canons; the same degree of preference being given to the Articles of religion before the Homilies, in point of doctrine, and to the Rubric before the body of Canons, in point of practice.

The Thirty-nine Articles, for instance, being the capital rule of our doctrine, as we are teachers in this Church; (they being this Church’s interpretation of the word of GOD in Scripture, so far as they go;) and designed as a bulwark against Popery and fanaticism; we are bound to a very full and explicit acknowledgment under our hands, that we do deliberately, and advisedly, and ex animo, assent to every part and proposition contained in them. For this everybody knows to be the meaning of clerical subscriptions, both before ordination, and as often as the three articles of the thirty-sixth canon are subscribed by us.

In the like manner the Rubric being the standard of uniformity of worship in our communion; the adding to which tends towards opening a gap to Popish superstitions, and the increase of human inventions in the service of GOD; and the subtracting from which tends towards paving a way to a fanatical disuse and contempt of rites and ceremonies; therefore we are obliged, not only to declare our ex animo approbation, assent, and consent, to the matter of the Rubric, but are laid under religious promises, that we will in every particular, prescribed in and by it, conform ourselves to it as the rule of our ministration.

And, indeed, considering that both the Articles and the Rubric are statute as well as canon law, and have equally the sanction and authority both of the temporal and spiritual legislatures; and considering the condition upon which we are admitted to minister in this established Church, which is our solemn reception of them both as our rule; I do not see how any man can, with a good conscience, continue acting as a minister of our Church, who can allow himself either to depart from her doctrine as expressed in her Articles, or from her rites and ceremonies as prescribed in the Service Book. Wherefore it is not without reason that the thirty-eighth canon, which is entitled “Revolters after subscription censured,” expressly denounces, that “if any minister, after having subscribed the three articles of the 36th canon, shall omit to use any of the orders and ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, he shall be suspended; and if after one month he reform not, he shall be excommunicated; and if after the space of another month he submit not himself, he shall be deposed from the ministry.”

But the case of Homilies and Canons is different from that of the Articles and Rubric. They are indeed equally set forth by authority. The one is as truly the doctrine, and the other is as truly the law, of the Church. But still the regard that we are supposed to pay to them is not equally the same. For, though we subscribe to the Homilies, yet this subscription amounts to no more than our acknowledgment, that “they contain a godly and wholesome doctrine necessary for the times they were written in, and fitting to be publicly taught unto the people;” and not that we will maintain every particular doctrine, or argument, or assertion, contained in them.

In like manner we say as to the Canons. “We receive them in general as a good body of ecclesiastical laws. We acknowledge the wholesomeness and fitness of them all for discipline, and order, and edification, and proper in every respect for the times in which they were drawn up. But we do not look upon every particular thereby enjoined as absolutely and indispensably requisite to be practised now by us in the manner it is enjoined, any more than we hold our approbation of every sentence or expression in the Book of Homilies to be necessary.—Archdeacon Sharp.

Were I asked the question, whether the clergymen of the Church of England subscribe to the doctrines of the Homilies, as well as to the Articles of Religion, I should, in sincerity and truth, be obliged to reply, most undoubtedly not. Neither at ordination, nor upon collation or institution to benefices, nor at any other period, is any such subscription required of the clergy. We cannot help remarking a broad distinction in the degree of authority attributed by our Church, to the Liturgy, the Articles, and the Books of Homilies, respectively. To the Liturgy, all beneficed clergymen are bound, within a limited period after institution or collation, open and publicly, before the congregation to which they have been appointed ministers, to declare their unfeigned assent and consent. To the Articles, the clergy are obliged, at various times, and on different occasions, solemnly to subscribe. But, however venerable and valuable the Homilies unquestionably are, we do not find them treated with any such distinction; and, by the simple fact, that no provision is made for their being signed, subscribed, or solemnly assented to, they are placed in an immeasurably lower grade than the other formularies. It is, indeed, asserted in the thirty-fifth Article, that “the Second Book of Homilies doth contain a goodly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times,” [the times in which it was prepared and published,] “as doth the former Book of Homilies:”—and, in subscribing to the Articles, every clergyman admits the truth of this assertion. But the assertion itself is both limited and guarded, and is very different from that full assurance and conviction expressed by the Church, and demanded of her ministers, respecting both our Articles and Liturgy.... I conceive the framers of our Articles merely to have asserted, that the Homilies, generally speaking, contained religious and moral instruction, good, and salutary, and necessary to be so administered under the peculiar circumstance of their own times.—Bishop Jebb: the Homilies considered.

It seems the author of the Homilies wrote them in haste, and the Church did wisely to reserve this authority of correcting and setting forth others. (See Rubric before Offertory.) For they have many scapes in them in special, although they contain in general many wholesome lessons for the people; in which sense our ministers do subscribe unto them, and no other.—Bp. Overall.

The authors of several of the Homilies are mentioned in Corry’s recent edition of them, who also shows how they were intended to bear upon the Antinomian as well as the Popish errors of the day.

HOMOIOUSIANS. Semi-Arians, who held that the nature of GOD the SON, though not the same, was similar to that of GOD the Father.

HOMOOUSIANS. A name given by Arians to Catholic Christians, for holding the doctrine of the Homoousion.

HOMOOUSION. (See Trinity.) This is the critical word of the Nicene Creed, and is used to express the real Divinity of CHRIST, and that, as derived from, and one with, the FATHER. The word was adopted from the necessity of the case, in a sense different from the ordinary philosophical use of it. Ὁμοούσιος properly means of the same nature, i. e. under the same general nature, or species; i. e. is applied to things which are but similar to each other, and are considered as one by an abstraction of our minds. Thus Aristotle speaks of the stars being ὁμοούσια with each other; and Porphyry, of the souls of brute animals being ὁμοούσιαι to ours. When, however, it was used in relation to the incommunicable essence of GOD, there was obviously no abstraction possible in contemplating him, who is above all comparison with his works. His nature is solitary, peculiar to himself, and one; so that, whatever was accounted to be ὁμοούσιος with him, was necessarily included in his individuality by all who would avoid recurring to the vagueness of philosophy, and were cautious to distinguish between the incommunicable essence of Jehovah and all created intelligences. And hence the fitness of the term to denote without metaphor the relation which the Logos bore in the orthodox creed to his eternal FATHER. Its use is explained by Athanasius as follows: “Though,” he says, “we cannot understand what is meant by the οὐσία of GOD, yet we know as much as this, that God exists (εῖναι), which is the way in which Scripture speaks of him; and after this pattern, when we wish to designate him distinctly, we say GOD, FATHER, LORD. When then he says in Scripture, ‘I am ὁ ὤν,’ and ‘I am Jehovah, GOD,’ or uses the plain word ‘GOD,’ we understand by such statements nothing but his incomprehensible οὐσία, and that he, who is there spoken of, exists (ἐστίν). Let no one then think it strange, that the SON of GOD should be said to be ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the substance of GOD; rather, let him agree to the explanation of the Nicene fathers, who, for the words ἐκ Θεοῦ, substituted the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. They considered the two phrases substantially the same, because, as we have said, the word GOD denotes nothing but the οὐσία αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος. On the other hand, if the word be not in such sense ἔκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as to be the true SON of the FATHER according to his nature, but be said to be ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, merely as all creatures are such as being his work, then indeed he is not ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, nor SON κατ’ ὑσίαν, but so called from his virtue, as we may be who receive the title from grace.

Bishop Bull says that ὁμοούσιος is used by standard Greek writers to signify that which is of the same substance, essence, or nature. And he shows at large that the term was not invented by the Nicene Fathers, but was known in its present theological acceptation long before; by Irenæus, by Origen, (as Dionysius of Alexandria and Athanasius testify,) by Gregory Thaumaturgus, &c. See the 2nd section of that exhaustive and irrefragable treatise, the Defensio Fidei Nicænæ. See also Suicer in voc., from which it appears that the ante-Nicene fathers defined the word as signifying “that which is of the same nature, essence, eternity, and energy,” without any difference.

HOOD. The hood as used by us, is partly derived from the monastic caputium, partly from the canonical amice, or almutium. It was formerly used by the laity as well as the clergy, and by the monastic orders. In cathedral and collegiate churches, the hoods of the canons and prebendaries were frequently lined with fur or wool, and always worn in the choir. The term almutium, or amice, was peculiarly applied to these last. And such is the present usage in foreign churches, where the capitular canons are generally distinguished from the inferior members, by the colour or materials of the almuce. (See Amice.)—Palmer.

As used in England and Ireland, it is an ornamental fold that hangs down the back of a graduate to mark his degree. This part of the dress was formerly not intended for distinction and ornament, but for use. It was generally fastened to the back of the cope or other vesture, and in case of rain or cold was drawn over the head. In the universities the hoods of the graduates were made to signify their degrees by varying the colours and materials. The hoods at our three principal universities, Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, vary considerably from one another: with this agreement, that all Doctors are distinguished by a scarlet hood, the linings (at Oxford and Dublin) varying according to the different faculties. Originally however it would appear that they were the same, probably till after the Restoration. Masters of Arts had originally fur hoods, like the proctors at Oxford, whose dress is in fact that of full costume of a Master of Arts; Bachelors in other faculties wore silk hoods of some intermediate colour; and Bachelors of Arts stuff hoods lined with lambs’ wool. The hoods in the Scottish universities followed the pattern of those of the university of Paris.—Jebb.

By the 58th canon, every minister saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the Church, if they are graduates, shall wear upon their surplice, at such times, such hoods as by the orders of the universities are agreeable to their degrees.

HOSANNA, signifies as much as Save now. The Jews call their feast of Tabernacles, Hosanna Rabba, i. e. the great Hosanna; the origin of that word is, because on that day they prayed for the salvation and forgiveness of all the sins of the people. Therefore they used the word Hosanna in all their prayers; which implies, Save, I pray, according to Buxtorf; but Anthony Nebrissensis observes after Rabbi Elias, that the Jews call the willow branches, which they carry at the feast, Hosanna, because they sing Hosanna, shaking them everywhere. And Grotius observes, that the feasts of the Jews did not only signify their going out of Egypt, the memory of which they celebrated, but also the expectation of the MESSIAS: and that still on the day when they carry those branches, they wished to celebrate that feast at the coming of the MESSIAS; from whence he concludes, that the people carrying those branches before our SAVIOUR, showed their joy, acknowledging him to be the MESSIAS.

HOSPITALS, were houses for the relief of poor and impotent persons, and were generally incorporated by royal patents, and made capable of gifts and grants in succession. Some of these in England are very noble foundations, as St. Cross at Winchester, founded in the reign of King Stephen, &c. In most cathedral towns there are hospitals, often connected with the cathedrals. Christ’s Hospital in London was one of those many excellent endowments, to which the funds of alienated monasteries would have been more largely directed, had secular avarice permitted.

HOSPITALLERS, or Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. Knights who took their name from an hospital built in Jerusalem for the use of pilgrims coming to the Holy Land. They were to provide for such pilgrims, and to protect them on the road. They came to England in the year 1100, and here they arrived to such power that their superior had a seat in the House of Lords, and ranked as the first lay baron.

HOSPITIUM, or Domus Hospitium. In ancient monasteries, the place where pilgrims and other strangers were received and entertained.

HOST. (See Transubstantiation.) From hostia, a victim. The bread used by the Roman Catholic Church in the celebration of the eucharist. It is unleavened, thin, flat, and of circular form, and has certain mystic signs impressed on it. Romanists worship the host, under a false presumption that the elements are no longer bread and wine, but transubstantiated into the real body and blood of CHRIST.

HOSTIARIUS. (See Ostiarius.) The second master in some of the old endowed schools, as Winchester, is so called. Hence usher.

HOUR GLASS. The usual length of sermons in the English Church, from the Reformation till the latter part of the seventeenth century, was an hour. Puritans preached much longer—two, three, and even four hours. For the measurement of the time of sermon, hour glasses were frequently attached to pulpits, and in some churches the stand for the glass, if not the instrument itself, still remains.

HOURS OF PRAYER. The Church of England, at the revision of our offices in the reign of Edward VI., only prescribed public worship in the morning and evening: and in making this regulation she was perfectly justified: for though it is the duty of Christians to pray continually, yet the precise times and seasons of prayer, termed Canonical Hours, do not rest on any Divine command; neither have they ever been pronounced binding on all Churches by any general council; neither has there been any uniformity in the practice of the Christian Church in this respect. The hours of prayer before the Reformation were seven in number,—matins, the first, third, sixth, and ninth hours, vespers, and compline. The office of matins, or morning prayer, according to the Church of England, is a judicious abridgment of her ancient services for matins, lauds, and prime; and the office of even-song, or evening prayer, in like manner, is an abridgment of the ancient service for vespers and compline. Both these offices have received several improvements in imitation of the ancient discipline of the Churches of Egypt, Gaul, and Spain.—Palmer.

The offices for the third, sixth, and ninth hours, were shorter than the others, and were nearly the same every day. Bishop Cosin drew up, by royal command, a form of devotion for private use for the different canonical hours. It is supposed that the seven hours of prayer took their rise from the example of the psalm, “Seven times a day do I give thanks unto thee;” but the ancient usage of the Church does not sanction more than two or three times for stated public prayer. (See Primer.)

HOUSEL. (Saxon.) The blessed eucharist. Johnson derives it from the Gothic hunsel, a sacrifice, or hostia, dim. hostiola, Latin. Todd, in his emendations, remarks on the verb to housel, that an old lexicography defines it specially, “to administer the communion to one who lieth on his death-bed.” It was, perhaps, in later times more generally used in this sense: still it was often employed, as we find from Chaucer, and writers as late as the time of Henry VIII., as in Saxon times, to signify absolutely the receiving of the eucharist.—Jebb.

HUGUENOTS. A name by which the French Protestants were distinguished, very early in their history. The name is of uncertain derivation; some deduce it from one of the gates of the city of Tours, called Hugon’s, at which these Protestants held their first assemblies; others from the words Huc nos, with which their original protest commenced; others from the German, Eidgenossen, (associated by oath,) which first became Egnots and afterwards Huguenots.

The origin of the sect in France dates from the reign of Francis I., when the principles and doctrines of the German Reformers found many disciples among their Gallic neighbours. As everywhere else, so in France, the new doctrines spread with great rapidity, and called forth the energies both of Church and State to repress them. Both Francis and his successor, Henry II., placed the Huguenots under various penal disabilities, and they were subjected to the violence of the factious French among their opponents, without protection from the State: but the most terrible deed of horror which was perpetrated against them was the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day. (See Bartholomew.) A scene which stands recorded in history, as if to teach us to how great a depth of cruelty and oppression mankind may be driven by fanaticism.

In the reign of Henry IV. the Huguenots were protected by the edict of Nantes, which was revoked, however, in 1685, by Cardinal Mazarin, the minister of Louis XIV.: on this occasion 500,000 of this persecuted race took refuge in the neighbouring Protestant states. At the Revolution, the Huguenots were restored to their civil rights, so far as civil rights were left to any citizens of a libertine and infidel state: and at present their ministers, like those of all Christian sects, are paid a scanty pittance by the State.

In doctrine and discipline the Huguenots symbolized with Calvin, and the sect which he originated at Geneva.

HULSEAN LECTURES. Lectures delivered at Cambridge, under the will of the Rev. John Hulse, late of Elworth, bearing date the 12th day of July, 1777. The number, originally twenty, is now reduced to eight.

HUMANITY OF OUR LORD, is his possessing a true human body and a true human soul. (See Jesus.)

HUSSITES. The followers of John Huss, of Bohemia, who maintained Wickliff’s opinions in 1407, with wonderful zeal. The emperor Sigismond sent to him, to persuade him to defend his doctrine before the Council of Constance, which he did A. D. 1414, having obtained a passport and an assurance of safe conduct from the emperor. There were seven months spent in examining him, and two bishops were sent into Bohemia, to inform themselves of the doctrine he preached; and for his firm adherence to the same, he was condemned to be burnt alive with his books, which sentence was executed in 1415, contrary to the safe-conduct, which the Council of Constance basely said that the emperor was not bound to keep to a heretic. His followers believed that the Church consisted only of those predestinated to glory, and that the reprobates were no part of it; that the condemnation of the five and forty articles of Wickliff was wicked and unreasonable. Moreri adds, that they partly afterwards subdivided, and opposed both their bishops and secular princes in Bohemia; where, if we must take his word, they were the occasion of great disorders and civil commotions in the fifteenth century.

HUTCHINSONIANS. “The name of Hutchinsonians,” says Jones of Nayland, who, with Bishops Horne and Horsley, was the most distinguished of those who bore the name, “was given to those gentlemen who studied Hebrew, and examined the writings of John Hutchinson, Esq., [born at Spennythorpe, in Yorkshire, 1674,] and became inclined to favour his opinions in theology and philosophy. The theological opinions of these divines, so far as they were distinguished from those of their own age, related chiefly to the explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, [see Note L. to Dr. Mill’s five Sermons on the Temptation of Christ,] and to the manner in which they confirmed Divine revelation generally, by reference to the natural creation. The notion of a Trinity, it was maintained, was the token from the three agents in the system of nature, fire, light, and air, on which all natural light and motion depend, and which were said to signify the three supreme powers of the GODHEAD in the administration of the spiritual world. This led to their opposing Newton’s theory of a vacuum and gravity, and to their denying that most matter is, like the mind, capable of active qualities, and to their ascribing attraction, repulsion, &c., to subtle causes not immaterial.

In natural philosophy they maintained that the present condition of the earth bears evident marks of an universal flood, and that extraneous fossils are to be accounted for by the same catastrophe. They urged great precaution in the study of classical heathen literature, under the conviction that it had tended to produce pantheistic notions, then so popular. They also looked with some suspicion upon what is called natural religion, and to many passages of Scripture they gave a figurative, rather than a literal, interpretation.—See Jones’s Life of Bishop Horne.

The learned and pious Parkhurst was a Hutchinsonian; and his peculiar opinions not a little influenced his etymological conjectures, though in no way interfering with his orthodoxy and sound scholarship.

HYMN. A song of adoration. It is certain from Holy Scripture, that the Christians were wont to sing hymns in the apostles’ time; and it is probable that St. Ignatius appointed them to be sung by each side of the choir. It is probable also that the place of these hymns was, as now, after the lessons: for St. Ambrose notes, that as, after one angel had published the gospel, a multitude joined with him in praising GOD, so, when one minister hath read the gospel, all the people glorify GOD. The same appears to have been the custom from St. Augustine, and from a constitution of the Council of Laodicea, in the year 365. As for the particular hymns of our Church, they are, as of old in the primitive Church, generally taken out of Scripture; yet as they also made use of some hymns not found in Scripture, so do we.

Hymns may be said to consist of three kinds: (1.) Metrical, such as were in use in the daily service of the unreformed Church. Of this kind there is but one formally authorized by the Church of England, viz. the Veni Creator. (2.) Canticles, appointed to be said or sung in the daily service, and divided into verses, and pointed, like the Psalms. The Te Deum, and the Benedictus, are so expressly called in the Prayer Book; and such by implication are the Benedicite, (called a canticle,) the Magnificat, and Nunc Dimittis. (3.) Those portions of the Communion Service which are appointed to be said or sung, but not arranged like the Canticles: as the Tersanctus, and the Gloria in Excelsis. St. Paul (Eph. v. 19, and Col. iii. 16) speaks of psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. The first of these words would seem to refer to the mizmor, or psalm, properly so called; the second to the tehikah, or jubilant song of praise; the last to the shir, or song; all of which words occur both in the titles, and the text, of the Book of Psalms. (See Song.)

HYPERDULIA. (See Dulia and Idolatry.)

HYPOSTASIS. A theological Christian term, for the true knowledge of the meaning of which take this short account. The Greeks took it in the first three centuries for particular substance, and therefore said there were three hypostases, that is, three “Persons,” according to the Latins. Where some of the Eastern people understanding the word hypostases in another sense, would not call the Persons three hypostases. Athanasius showed them in a council held at Alexandria in 362, that they all said the same thing, and that all the difference was, that they gave to the same word two different significations: and thus he reconciled them together. It is evident that the word hypostasis signifies two things: first, an individual particular substance; secondly, a common nature or essence. Now when the Fathers say there are “three hypostases,” their meaning is to be judged from the time they lived in; if it be one of the three first centuries, they meant all along three distinct agents, of which the FATHER was supreme. If one of much later date uses the expression, he means, most probably, little more than a mode of existence in a common nature.

HYPOSTATICAL UNION. The union of the human nature of our LORD with the Divine; constituting two natures in one person, and not two persons in one nature, as the Nestorians assert. (See Union.)

HYPOTHETICAL, This term is sometimes used in relation to a baptism administered to a child, of whom it is uncertain whether he has been already baptized or not. The rubric states, that “if they who bring the infant to the church do make such uncertain answers to the priest’s questions, as that it cannot appear that the child was baptized with water, in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST,” then the priest, on performing the baptism, is to use this form of words, viz. “If thou art not already baptized, N——, I baptize thee in the name,” &c.

This, therefore, is called an hypothetical or conditional form, being used only on the supposition that the child may not have already received baptism.

HYPSISTARIANS. Heretics in the fourth century of Christianity. According to Gregory Nazianzen, (whose own father had once been a member of the sect, but afterwards became a Christian bishop,) they made a mixture of the Jewish religion and paganism, for they worshipped fire with the pagans, and observed the sabbath, and legal abstinence from meats, with the Jews.

ICONOCLASTS, or IMAGE BREAKERS. (See Images, Image Worship, and Idolatry.) From εἰκὼν, an image, and κλάω, to break. A name given to the image-breakers in the eighth century. Sarantapechs, or Serantampicus, a Jew, persuaded Ezidus, or Gizidus, king of the Arabs, to take the images of saints out of churches that belonged to the Christians: and some time after, Bazere, [but Baronius writes Beser,] becoming a Mahometan in Syria, where he was a slave, insinuated himself so much into the favour of Leo Isauricus, that this prince, at his and the persuasion of other Jews, who had foretold him his coming to the empire, declared against images, about 726, ordered the statue of CHRIST, placed over one of the gates of the city, to be thrown down, and being enraged at a tumult occasioned thereby, issued a proclamation wherein he abolished the use of statues, and menaced the worshippers with severe punishments; and all the solicitations of Germanus the patriarch, and of the bishop of Rome, could prevail nothing in their favour. His son and successor Constantine forbade praying to saints or the Virgin; he set at nought the pope, and assembled a council, in which his proceedings were approved; but this council, being condemned at Rome, the emperor strove more than ever to gain his point. Leo IV. succeeded in 775, and reigned but four years, leaving his son Constantine under the tutelage of the empress Irene. In her time, A. D. 787, was held the second Council of Nice, in which, according to Baronius, a request was made that the image of CHRIST and of the saints might be restored. But Spanheim says that Philip the emperor, and John, patriarch of Constantinople, having rejected the sixth general council against the Monotheletes in 712, took away the pictures of the Fathers of that and the former councils, hung up by the emperor Justinian, in the portico of St. Sophia; and that the pope thereupon, in a synod at Rome, ordered the like images to be placed in St. Peter’s church, and thenceforth worshipped; their use until that time being purely historical. The Saracens, offended at that superstition, persecuted the Christians; and Leo calling a synod issued a proclamation, condemning the worship of images, but granting that they might be hung up in churches, the better to prevent idolatry; and upon a further dispute with Pope Gregory II., who excommunicated him, and absolved his subjects from their obedience in 730, he commanded that they should be quite taken down and destroyed. Constantine Copronymus followed his father’s example, and in the thirteenth year of his reign, anno 744, assembled the seventh general council of the Greeks, wherein images and their worshippers were condemned. His son Leo IV. followed his steps, who, at his death, leaving the empress Irene to administer the state during the minority of Constantine VII., she, to gain the monks over to her interest, made use of them to restore images, advanced Tarasius from a laic to be patriarch of Constantinople, and so managed the council which she called at Nice, that they decreed several sorts of worship to images; as salutation, incense, kissing, wax lights, &c., but neither approved images of the Trinity, statues, nor any carved work. Constantine being of age, and opposing this procedure, was barbarously deprived of his sight and life by his unnatural mother Irene; an act which is commended by Cardinal Baronius, who declared the emperor Leo incapable of the crown, which he calls a rare example to posterity not to suffer heretical princes to reign. On the other side, the popes imitated their predecessors in their hatred to the Greek emperors, whom they despoiled of their exarchate of Ravenna, and their other possessions in Italy, which, by the help of the French, was turned into St. Peter’s patrimony; but that the French, Germans, and other northern countries, abhorred image worship, is plain by the capitulary of Charlemagne against images, and the acts of the synod of Frankfort under that prince, who also wrote four books to Pope Adrian against image worship, and the illegal Council of Nice above mentioned. Image worship was also opposed by other emperors who succeeded; as also by the Churches of Italy, Germany, France, and Britain, particularly by the learned Alcuin.

IDES. A word occurring in the Roman calendar, inserted in all correct editions of the Prayer Book. The ides were eight days in each month: in March, May, July, and October, the ides ended on the 15th, and in all other months, on the 13th day. The word Ides, taken from the Greek, (ειἶδος,) means an aspect or appearance, and was primarily used to denote the full moon. The system of the original Roman calendar was founded on the change of the moon, the nones being the completion of the first quarter, as the ides were of the second.—Stephens, Book of Common Prayer; Notes on the Calendar.

IDOLATRY. (See Images and Iconoclasts.) From εἶδωλον, an idol, and λατρεία, worship. The worship of idols. This is one of the crying sins of the Church of Rome. Palmer, in his Essay on the Church, mentions some of the idolatries and heresies which are held without censure in the Roman communion.

I. It is maintained without censure that Latria, or the worship paid to the Divine nature, is also due to—

Images of CHRIST;

Images of the Trinity;

Images of GOD the FATHER;

Relics of the blood, flesh, hair, and nails of CHRIST;

Relics of the true cross;

Relics of the nails, spear, sponge, scourge, reed, pillar, linen, cloth, napkin of Veronica, seamless coat, purple robe, inscription on the cross, and other instruments of the passion;

Images of the cross;

The Bible;

The Blessed Virgin.

All these creatures ought, according to the doctrines taught commonly and without censure in the Roman communion, to receive the very worship paid to GOD.

II. Divine honours are practically offered to the Virgin and to all the saints and angels. It has been repeatedly and clearly shown, that they are addressed in exactly the same terms in which we ought to address GOD; that the same sort of confidence is expressed in their power; that they are acknowledged to be the authors of grace and salvation. These idolatries are generally practised without opposition or censure.

III. The Virgin is blasphemously asserted to be superior to GOD the SON, and to command him. She is represented as the source of all grace, while believers are taught to look on JESUS with dread. The work of redemption is said to be divided between her and our LORD.

IV. It is maintained that justification leaves the sinner subject to the wrath and vengeance of GOD.

V. That the temporal afflictions of the righteous are caused by the wrath of an angry GOD.

VI. That the righteous suffer the tortures of hell-fire after death.

VII. That the sacrifice of CHRIST on the cross is repeated or continued in the eucharist.

These and other errors contrary to faith are inculcated within the communion of the Roman Church, without censure or open opposition.—Palmer.

ILE. (See Aisle.) The passages in a church, parallel to the nave, from which they are separated by rows of columns and piers, being narrower and lower. The same term is applied to the side passages which sometimes mark the transept and the choir. The aisles of the apin are more properly called the ambulatory. The aisles were adopted from the ancient Basilicas, in which they are for the most part found. They are of comparatively rare occurrence in the Oriental churches. The word is derived from the Latin ala, which was used in an architectural sense to mean a side building, as we use wing. Thus Vitruvius, as quoted by Facciolati; “In ædificiis alæ dicuntur structura ad latria ædium, dextra, et sinistra protensæ, ut columnarum ordines, vel porticus; quas Græci quoque πτερὰ et πτέρυγας appellant.” And thus in French, the same word aile signifies a wing and a church aisle.

ILLUMINATI, or ALLUMBRADOS. Certain Spanish heretics who began to appear in the world about 1575; but the authors being severely punished, this sect was stifled, as it were, until 1623, and then awakened with more vigour in the diocese of Seville. The edict against them specifies seventy-six different errors, whereof the principal are, that with the assistance of mental prayer and union with GOD, (which they boasted of,) they were in such a state of perfection as not to need either good works, or the sacraments of the Church. Soon after these were suppressed, a new sect, under the same name, appeared in France. These, too, were entirely extinguished in the year 1635. Among other extravagances, they held that friar Antony Bocquet had a system of belief and practice revealed to him which exceeded all that was in Christianity; that by virtue of that method, people might improve to the same degree of perfection and glory that saints and the Virgin Mary had; that none of the doctors of the Church knew anything of devotion; that St. Peter was a good, well-meaning man only; St. Paul never heard scarce anything of devotion; that the whole Church lay in darkness and misbelief; that GOD regarded nothing but himself; that within ten years their notions would prevail all the world over; and then there would be no occasion for priests, monks, or any religious distinctions.

IMAGES. In the religious sense of the word, there appears to have been little or no use of images in the Christian Church for the first three or four hundred years, as is evident from the silence of all ancient authors, and of the heathens themselves, who never recriminated, or charged the use of images on the primitive Christians. There are positive proofs in the fourth century, that the use of images was not allowed; particularly, the Council of Eliberis decrees that pictures ought not to be put in churches, lest that which is worshipped be painted upon the walls. Petavius gives this general reason for the prohibition of all images whatever at that time—because the remembrance of idolatry was yet fresh in men’s minds. About the latter end of the fourth century, pictures of saints and martyrs began to creep into the churches. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, ordered his church to be painted with Scripture histories, such as those of Esther, Job, Tobit, and Judith. And St. Augustine often speaks of the pictures of Abraham offering his son Isaac, and those of St. Peter and St. Paul, but without approving the use of them; on the contrary he tells us, the Church condemned such as paid a religious veneration to pictures, and daily endeavoured to correct them, as untoward children.

It was not till after the second Council of Nice that images of GOD, or the Trinity, were allowed in churches. Pope Gregory II., who was otherwise a great stickler for images, in that very epistle which he wrote to the emperor Leo to defend the worship of them, denies it to be lawful to make any image of the Divine nature. Nor did the ancient Christians approve of massy images, or statues of wood, metal, or stone, but only pictures or paintings to be used in churches, and those symbolical rather than any other. Thus, a lamb was the symbol of JESUS CHRIST, and a dove of the HOLY GHOST. But the sixth general council forbade the picturing CHRIST any more under the figure of a lamb, and ordered that he should be represented by the effigies of a man. By this time, it is presumed, the worship of images was begun, anno 692.

The worship of images occasioned great contests both in the Eastern and Western Churches. (See Iconoclasts.) Nicephorus, who had wrested the empire from Irene, in the year 802, maintained the worship of images. The emperor Michael, in 813, declared against the worship of images, and expelled Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, Theodorus Studita, Nicetas, and others, who had asserted it. Michael II., desiring to re-establish peace in the East, proposed to assemble a council, to which both the Iconoclasts (those who broke down images) and the asserters of image worship should be admitted; but the latter refusing to sit with heretics, as they called the Iconoclasts, the emperor found out a medium. He left all men free to worship or not worship images, and published a regulation, forbidding the taking of crosses out of the churches, to put images in their place; the paying of adoration to the images themselves; the clothing of statues; the making them godfathers and godmothers to children; the lighting candles before them, and offering incense to them, &c. Michael sent ambassadors into the West to get this regulation approved. These ministers applied themselves to Louis le Debonnaire, who sent an embassy to Rome upon this subject. But the Romans, and Pope Pascal I., did not admit of the regulation; and a synod, held at Paris in 824, was of opinion, that though the use of images ought not to be prohibited, yet it was not allowable to pay them any religious worship. At length the emperor Michael settled his regulation in the East; and his son Theophilus, who succeeded him in the year 829, held a council at Constantinople, in which the Iconoclasts were condemned, and the worship of images restored. It does not appear that there was any controversy afterwards about images. The French and Germans used themselves, by degrees, to pay an outward honour to images, and conformed to the Church of Rome.

Image worship is one great article of modern Popery. “No sooner is a man advanced a little forward into their churches, (says a modern author, speaking of the Roman Catholics,) and begins to look about him, but he will find his eyes and attention attracted by the number of lamps and wax candles, which are constantly burning before the shrines and images of their saints; a sight which will not only surprise a stranger by the novelty of it, but will furnish him with one proof and example of the conformity of the Romish with the Pagan worship, by recalling to his memory many passages of the heathen authors, where their perpetual lamps and candles are described as continually burning before the altars and statues of their deities.” The Romanists believe that the saint to whom the image is dedicated presides in a particular manner about its shrine, and works miracles by the intervention of its image; insomuch that, if the image were destroyed or taken away, the saint would no longer perform any miracle in that place. This is exactly the notion of Paganism, that the gods resided in their statues or images. “Minucius Felix, rallying the gods of the heathens, (they are M. Jurieu’s words,) says: Ecce funditur, fabricatur; nondum Deus est. Ecce plumbatur, construitur, erigitur: nec adhuc Deus. Ecce ornatur, consecratur, oratur; tum postremo Deus est. I am mistaken if the same thing may not be said of the Romish saints. They cast an image, they work it with a hammer; it is not yet a saint. They set it upright, and fasten it with lead; neither is it yet a saint. They adorn, consecrate, and dedicate it; behold, at last, a complete saint!”

By a decree of the Council of Trent, it is forbidden to set up any extraordinary and unusual image in the churches, without the bishop’s approbation first obtained. As to the consecration of images, they proceed in the same manner as at the benediction of a new cross. At saying the prayer, the saint, whom the image represents, is named: after which the priest sprinkles the image with holy water. But when an image of the Virgin Mary is to be blessed, it is thrice incensed, besides sprinkling: to which are added the Ave Mary, psalms, and anthems, and a double sign of the cross.

The Roman Catholics talk much of the miraculous effects of the images of their saints, forgetting that lying wonders are a sign of Antichrist. The image of JESUS CHRIST, which, feeling itself wounded with a dagger by an impious wretch, laid its hand upon the wound, is famous at Naples. The image of St. Catharine of Siena has often driven out devils, and wrought other miracles. Our Lady of Lucca, insolently attacked by a soldier, (who threw stones at her, and had nearly broken the holy child’s head, which she held on her right arm,) immediately set it on her left; and the child liked sitting on that arm so well, that, since that accident, he has never changed his situation.—Broughton.

IMAGE WORSHIP. All the points of doctrine or practice in which the Church of Rome differs from the Church of England are novelties, introduced gradually in the middle ages: of these the worship of images is the earliest practice, which received the sanction of what the Papists call a general council, though the second Council of Nice, A. D. 787, was in fact no general council. As this is the earliest authority for any of the Roman peculiarities, and as the Church of England at that early period was remarkably concerned in resisting the novelty, it may not be out of place to mention the circumstances as they are concisely stated by Perceval. The emperor Charlemagne, who was very much offended at the decrees of this council in favour of images, sent a copy of them into England. Alcuin, a most learned member of the Church of England, attacked them, and having produced Scriptural authority against them, transmitted the same to Charlemagne in the name of the bishops of the Church of England. Roger Hoveden, Simon of Durham, and Matthew of Westminster, mention the fact, and speak of the worship of images as being execrated by the whole Church. Charlemagne, pursuing his hostility to the Nicene Council, drew up four books against it, and transmitted them to Pope Adrian; who replied to them in an epistle “concerning images, against those who impugn the Nicene Synod,” as the title is given, together with the epistle itself, in the seventh volume of Labbe and Cossart’s Councils. The genuineness of these books is admitted by all the chief Roman writers. For the purpose of considering the subject more fully, Charlemagne assembled a great council of British, Gallican, German, and Italian bishops at Frankfort, at which two legates from the bishop of Rome were present; where, after mature deliberation, the decrees of the soi-disant general Council of Nice, notwithstanding Pope Adrian’s countenance, were “rejected,” “despised,” and “condemned.” The synod at Frankfort remains a monument of a noble stand in defence of the ancient religion, in which the Church of England had an honourable share, occupying, a thousand years ago, the self-same ground we now maintain, of protesting against Roman corruptions of the Catholic faith.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. (See Conception, Immaculate.)

IMMERSION. A mode of administering the sacrament of baptism, by which first the right side, then the left, then the face, are dipped in the font. Immersion is the mode of baptizing first prescribed in our office of public baptism; but it is permitted to pour water upon the child, if the godfathers and godmothers certify that the child is weak. (See Affusion.)

IMMOVEABLE FEASTS. (See Moveable Feasts.)

IMPANATION. A term (like transubstantiation and consubstantiation) used to designate a false notion of the manner of the presence of the body and blood of our blessed LORD in the holy eucharist.

This word is formed from the Latin panis (bread), as the word incarnation is formed from the Latin caro, carnis (flesh): and as incarnation signifies the eternal Word’s becoming flesh, or taking our nature for the purpose of our redemption; so does impanation signify the Divine person JESUS CHRIST, GOD and man, becoming bread [and wine], or taking the nature of bread, for the purposes of the holy eucharist: so that, as in the one Divine person JESUS CHRIST there were two perfect natures, GOD and man; so in the eucharistic elements, according to the doctrine expressed by the word impanation, there are two perfect natures—one of the DIVINE SON of the Blessed Virgin, and another of the eucharistic elements; the two natures being one, not in a figurative, but in a real and literal sense, by a kind of hypostatical union.

It does not occur to us that there is any sect which holds this false notion; but there are some individuals to whom it seems the true method of reconciling those apparent oppositions, (which are of the very essence of a mystery,) which occur in the Catholic statement of the doctrine of the holy eucharist. The nearest approach to the doctrine of impanation avowed by any sect, is that of the Lutherans. (See Consubstantiation.)

IMPLICIT FAITH. The faith which is given without reserve or examination, such as the Church of Rome requires of her members. The reliance we have on the Church of England is grounded on the fact, that she undertakes to prove that all her doctrines are Scriptural, but the Church of Rome requires credence on her own authority. The Church of England places the Bible as an authority above the Church, the Church of Rome makes the authority of the Church co-ordinate with that of the Bible. The Romish divines teach that we are to observe, not how the Church proves anything, but what she says: that the will of GOD is, that we should believe and confide in his ministers in the same manner as himself. Cardinal Toletus, in his instructions for priests, asserts, “that if a rustic believes his bishop proposing an heretical tenet for an article of faith, such belief is meritorious.” Cardinal Cusanus tells us, “That irrational obedience is the most consummate and perfect obedience, when we obey without attending to reason, as a beast obeys his driver.” In an epistle to the Bohemians he has these words: “I assert that there are no precepts of CHRIST but those which are received as such by the Church (meaning the Church of Rome). When the Church changes her judgment, GOD changes his judgment likewise.”

IMPOSITION, or LAYING ON OF HANDS. St. Paul (Heb. vi. 2) speaks of the doctrine of laying on of hands as one of the fundamentals of Christianity: it is an ecclesiastical action, by which a blessing is conveyed from GOD through his minister to a person prepared by repentance and faith to receive it. It is one of the most ancient forms in the world, sanctioned by the practice of Jacob, Moses, the apostles, and our blessed LORD himself. It is the form by which the bishop conveys his blessing in confirmation.

This ceremony has been always esteemed so essential a part of ordination, that any other way of conferring orders without it has been judged invalid. The imposition of hands undoubtedly took its rise from the practice of the Jewish Church, in initiating persons for performing any sacred office, or conferring any employ of dignity or power. Thus Joshua was inaugurated to his high office. (Numb. xxvii. 23.) Hence the Jews derived their custom of ordaining their rabbis by imposition of hands. The same ceremony we find used by the apostles, as often as they admitted any new members into the ministry of the Church. For, when they ordained the first deacons, it is recorded, that after praying “they laid hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.) At the ordination of Barnabas and Paul it is said, that they “fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them.” (Acts xiii. 3.) When St. Paul bids Timothy have regard to the graces conferred in his ordination, he observes that these were conferred by imposition of hands: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (1 Tim. iv. 14.) And in his other Epistle he exhorts him to “stir up the gift of GOD which was in him by the putting on of his hands.” (2 Tim. i. 6.) The primitive Christians, following exactly after this copy, never admitted any into orders but with this ceremony: so that the ancient councils seldom use any other word for ordination than “imposition of hands;” and the ancient writers of the Church signify, that the clerical character, and the gifts of the SPIRIT, were conferred by this action.

It must be observed here, that the imposition of the bishop’s hand alone is required in the ordination of a deacon, in conformity to the usage of the ancient Church.—Dr. Nicholls.

This was always a distinction between the three superior and five inferior orders, that the first were given by imposition of hands, and the second were not.—Dr. Burn.

IMPROPRIATION. Ecclesiastical property, the profits of which are in the hands of a layman; thus distinguished from appropriation, which is when the profits of a benefice are in the hands of a college, &c. Impropriations have arisen from the confiscation of monasteries in the time of Henry VIII., when, instead of restoring the tithes to ecclesiastical uses, they were given to rapacious laymen. Archbishop Laud exerted himself greatly to buy up impropriations.

IMPUTATION. The attributing a character to a person which he does not really possess; thus, when in holy baptism we are justified, the righteousness is imputed as well as imparted to us. The imputation which respects our justification before GOD, is GOD’S gracious reckoning of the righteousness of CHRIST to believers, and his acceptance of these persons as righteous on that account; their sins being imputed to him, and his obedience being imputed to them. Rom. iv. 6, 7; v. 18, 19; 2 Cor. v. 21. (See Faith and Justification.)

INCARNATION. The act whereby the SON of GOD assumed the human nature; or the mystery by which the Eternal Word was made man, in order to accomplish the work of our salvation.

The doctrine of the incarnation as laid down in the third General Council, that of Ephesus, (A. D. 431,) is as follows:—“The great and holy synod (of Nice) said, that he ‘who was begotten of the FATHER, as the only-begotten SON by nature; who was true GOD of true GOD, Light of light, by whom the FATHER made all things; that he descended, became incarnate, and was made man, suffered, rose on the third day, and ascended into the heavens.’ These words and doctrines we ought to follow, in considering what is meant by the Word of GOD being ‘incarnate and made man.’

“We do not say that the nature of the Word was converted and became flesh; nor that it was changed into perfect man, consisting of body and soul: but rather, that the Word, uniting to himself personally flesh, animated by a rational soul, became man in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, and became the SON of man, not merely by will and affection, nor merely by the assumption of one aspect or appearance; but that different natures were joined in a real unity, and that there is one CHRIST and SON, of two natures; the difference of natures not being taken away by their union.... It is said also, that he who was before all ages and begotten of the FATHER, was ‘born according to the flesh, of a woman:’ not as if his Divine nature had taken its beginning from the Holy Virgin ... but because for us, and for our salvation, he united personally to himself the nature of man, and proceeded from a woman; therefore he is said to be ‘born according to the flesh.’... So also we say that he ‘suffered and rose again,’ not as if GOD the Word had suffered in his own nature the stripes, the nails, or the other wounds; for the GODHEAD cannot suffer, as it is incorporeal: but because that which had become his own body suffered, he is said to suffer those things for us. For he who was incapable of suffering was in a suffering body. In like manner we understand his ‘death.’... Because his own body, by the grace of GOD, as Paul saith, tasted death for every man, he is said to suffer death,” &c.

INCENSE. The use of incense in connexion with the eucharist was unknown in the Church until the time of Gregory the Great, in the latter part of the sixth century. It then became prevalent in the Church, but has been long disused by the Church of England.—Bingham.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE. In the Athanasian Creed it is said, that “the FATHER is incomprehensible, the SON incomprehensible, the HOLY GHOST incomprehensible;” which means that the FATHER is illimitable, the SON illimitable, the HOLY GHOST illimitable. At the time when this creed was translated, the word incomprehensible was not confined to the sense it now bears, of inconceivable, or beyond the reach of our understanding; but it then meant, not comprehended within limits.

INCORRUPTICOLÆ, or Aphthartodocetæ, or Phantasiastæ. Heretics who had their original at Alexandria, in the time of the emperor Justinian. The beginning of the controversy was among the Eutychians, whether the body of CHRIST was corruptible or incorruptible from his conception: Severus held it corruptible; Julian of Halicarnassus held the contrary, that our LORD’S body was not obnoxious to hunger, thirst, or weariness; and that he did but seemingly suffer such things; from whence they were called Phantasiastæ. The emperor Justinian, in the very end of his reign, favoured these heretics, and persecuted the orthodox.

INCUMBENT. He who is in present possession of a benefice.

INDEPENDENTS. Like the Presbyterians, the Independents sprang from Puritanism, and were originally formed in Holland, about the year 1610, but their distinguishing doctrine seems to have been previously maintained in England by the Brownists, who were banished, or emigrated, in 1593.

The Independent idea of the word “Church,” says Adam, from whom this article is abridged, is, that it is never used but in two senses—as including the whole body of the redeemed, whether in heaven or in earth, who are called “the general assembly,” &c. (Heb. xii. 23); and, again, “the whole family in heaven and in earth” (Eph. iii. 15); or, as one single congregation. Hence their distinguishing tenet is grounded upon the notion that the primitive bishops were not overseers of dioceses, but pastors of single independent congregations.

That which unites them, or rather which distinguishes them from other denominations of Christians, is their maintaining that the power of Church government and discipline is lodged neither in the bishop, nor in a presbytery or senate of Church rulers distinct from the people, but in the community of the faithful at large; and their disclaiming, more or less, every form of union between Churches, and assigning to each congregation the exclusive government of itself, as a body corporate, having full power within itself to admit and exclude members; to choose Church officers; and, when the good of the society requires it, to depose them, without being accountable to classes, presbyteries, synods, convocations, councils, or any jurisdiction whatever.

In doctrine they are strictly Calvinistic. But many of the Independents, both at home and abroad, reject the use of “all creeds and confessions drawn up by fallible men;” and merely require of their teachers a declaration of their belief in the truth of the gospel and its leading doctrines, and of their adherence to the Scriptures as the sole standard of faith and practice, and the only test of doctrine, or the only criterion of faith. And in general they require from all persons who wish to be admitted into their communion, an account, either verbal or written, of what is called their experience; in which, not only a declaration of their faith in the LORD JESUS, and their purpose, by grace, to devote themselves to him, is expected, but likewise a recital of the steps by which they were led to a knowledge and profession of the gospel.

In regard to Church government and discipline, it may be sufficient to remark here, after what has already been said, that Independents in general agree with the Presbyterians, “in maintaining the identity of presbyters and bishops, and believe that a plurality of presbyters, pastors, or bishops, in one church, is taught in Scripture, rather than the common usage of one bishop over many congregations;” but they conceive their own mode of discipline to be “as much beyond the presbyterian, as presbytery is preferable to prelacy:” and, that one distinguishing feature of their discipline is, their maintaining “the right of the Church, or body of Christians, to determine who shall be admitted into their communion, and also to exclude from their fellowship those who may prove themselves unworthy members.

This their regard to purity of communion, whereby they profess to receive only accredited, or really serious Christians, has been termed the grand Independent principle.

The earliest account of the number of Independent congregations refers to 1812; before that period, Independent and Presbyterian congregations were returned together. In 1812, there seem to have been 1024 Independent churches in England and Wales (799 in England, and 225 in Wales). In 1838, an estimate gives 1840 churches in England and Wales. The present Census makes the number 3244 (2604 in England, and 640 in Wales); with accommodation (after making an allowance for 185 incomplete returns) for 1,063,136 persons. The attendance on the Census-Sunday was as follows—after making an addition for 59 chapels for which the numbers are not given—Morning, 524,612; Afternoon, 232,285; Evening, 457,162.—Registrar’s Report, 1851.

INDEXES. (Prohibitory and Expurgatory.) The books generally bearing the title of Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes, are catalogues of authors and works either condemned in toto, or censured and corrected chiefly by expunction, issued from the Church of modern Rome, and published by authority of her ruling members and societies so empowered.

The Prohibitory Index specifies and prohibits entire authors or works, whether of known or of unknown authors. This book has been frequently published, with successive enlargements, to the present time, under the express sanction of the reigning pontiff. It may be considered as a kind of periodical publication of the papacy.

The other class of indexes, the Expurgatory, contains a particular examination of the works occurring in it, and specifies the passages condemned to be expunged or altered. Such a work, in proportion to the number of works embraced by it, must be, and in the case of the Spanish indexes of the kind, is, voluminous. For a general history of these indexes the reader is referred to Mendham’s “Literary Policy of the Church of Rome.”

INDUCTION. This may be compared to livery and seisin of a freehold, for it is putting a minister in actual possession of the Church to which he is presented, and of the glebe land and other temporalities thereof; for before induction he hath no freehold in them. The usual method of induction is by virtue of a mandate under the seal of the bishop, to the archdeacon of the place, who either himself, or by his warrant to all clergymen within his archdeaconry, inducts the new incumbent by taking his hand, laying it on the key of the church in the door, and pronouncing these words, “I induct you into the real and actual possession of the rectory or vicarage of H——, with all its profits and appurtenances.” Then he opens the door of the church, and puts the person in possession of it, who enters to offer his devotions, which done he tolls a bell to summon his parishioners.

INDULGENCES. One of the evil practices of the Church of Rome, of whose doctrine upon the subject the following outline may be given:—

The conferring of indulgences, which are denominated “the heavenly treasures of the Church,” (Conc. Tri. Decret. Sess. XX.,) is said to be the “gift of CHRIST to the Church.” (Sess. XXV.) To understand the nature of indulgences we must observe, that “the temporal punishment due to sin, by the decree of GOD, when its guilt and eternal punishment are remitted, may consist either of evil in this life, or of temporal suffering in the next, which temporal suffering in the next life is called purgatory; that the Church has received power from GOD to remit both of these inflictions, and this remission is called an indulgence.”—Butler’s Book of the Rom. Cath. Ch. p. 110. “It is the received doctrine of the Church, that an indulgence, when truly gained, is not barely a relaxation of the canonical penance enjoined by the Church, but also an actual remission by GOD himself, of the whole, or part, of the temporal punishment due to it in his sight.”—Milner’s End of Controv. p. 305. Pope Leo X., in his bull De Indulgentiis, whose object he states to be “that no one in future may allege ignorance of the doctrine of the Roman Church respecting indulgences, and their efficacy,” declares, “that the Roman pontiff, vicar of CHRIST on earth, can, for reasonable causes, by the powers of the keys, grant to the faithful, whether in this life or in purgatory, indulgences, out of the superabundance of the merits of CHRIST and of the saints (expressly called a treasure); and that those who have truly obtained these indulgences are released from so much of the temporal punishment due for their actual sins to the Divine justice, as is equivalent to the indulgence granted and obtained.”—Bulla Leon. X. adv. Luther. Clement VI., in the bull Unigenitus, explains this matter more fully:—“As a single drop of CHRIST’S blood would have sufficed for the redemption of the whole human race,” so the rest was not lost, but “was a treasure which he acquired for the militant Church, to be used for the benefit of his sons; which treasure he would not suffer to be hid in a napkin, or buried in the ground, but committed it to be dispensed by St. Peter, and his successors, his own vicars upon earth, for proper and reasonable causes, for the total or partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin; and for an augmentation of this treasure the merits of the Blessed Mother of GOD, and of all the elect, are known to come in aid.” “We have resolved,” says Pope Leo XII., in his bull of indiction for the universal jubilee, in 1824, “in virtue of the authority given us by heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues of CHRIST our LORD, and of his Virgin Mother, and of all the saints, which the author of human salvation has intrusted to our dispensation. During this year of the jubilee, we mercifully give and grant, in the LORD, a plenary indulgence, remission, and pardon of all their sins, to all the faithful of CHRIST, truly penitent, and confessing their sins, and receiving the holy communion, who shall visit the churches of blessed Peter and Paul,” &c. “We offer you,” says Ganganelli, in his bull De Indulgentiis, “a share of all the riches of Divine mercy, which have been intrusted to us, and chiefly those which have their origin in the blood of CHRIST. We will then open to you all the gates of the rich reservoir of atonement, derived from the merits of the Mother of GOD, the holy apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the good works of all the saints. We invite you, then, to drink of this overflowing stream of indulgence, to enrich yourselves in the inexhaustible treasures of the Church, according to the custom of our ancestors. Do not, then, let slip the present occasion, this favourable time, these salutary days, employing them to appease the justice of God, and obtain your pardon.”

The reasonable causes, on account of which indulgences are given, are, where “the cause be pious, that is, not a work which is merely temporal, or vain, or in no respect pertaining to the Divine glory, but for any work whatsoever, which tends to the honour of GOD, or the service of the Church, an indulgence will be valid. We see, occasionally, the very greatest indulgences given for the very lightest causes; as when a plenary indulgence is granted to all who stand before the gates of St. Peter, whilst the pope gives the solemn blessing to the people on Easter day;” for “indulgences do not depend, for their efficacy, on consideration of the work enjoined, but on the infinite treasure of the merits of CHRIST and the saints, which is a consideration surpassing and transcending everything that is granted by an indulgence.” In some cases “the work enjoined must not only be pious and useful, but bear a certain proportion with the indulgence; that is, the work enjoined must tend to an end more pleasing in the sight of GOD, than the satisfaction remitted,” “although it is not necessary that it be in itself very meritorious, or satisfactory, or difficult, and laborious, (though these things ought to be regarded too,) but that it be a mean apt and useful towards obtaining the end for which the indulgence is granted.” “As the large resort of people,” before the gates of St. Peter, when the pope gives his solemn blessing, “is a mean, apt and useful, to set forth faith, respecting the head of the Church, and to the honour of the apostolic see, which is the end of the indulgence.”—Bellarmine de Indulgentiis, lib. i. c. 12. The first General Lateran Council granted “remission of sins to whoever shall go to Jerusalem, and effectually help to oppose the infidels.”—Can. XI. The third and fourth Lateran Councils granted the same indulgence to those who set themselves to destroy heretics, or who shall take up arms against them.—See Labbe, vol. x. p. 1523. Boniface VIII. granted, not only a full and large, but the most full, pardon of all sins to all that visit Rome the first year in every century. Clement V. decreed, that they who should, at the jubilee, visit such and such churches, should obtain “a most full remission of all their sins;” and he not only granted a “plenary absolution of all sins, to all who died on the road to Rome,” but “also commanded the angels of paradise to carry the soul direct to heaven.”

“Sincere repentance,” we are told, “is always enjoined, or implied, in the grant of an indulgence, and is indispensably necessary for every grace.”—Milner’s End of Controversy, p. 304. But as the dead are removed from the possibility, so are they from the necessity, of repentance; “as the pope,” says Bellarmine, “applies the satisfactions of CHRIST and the saints to the dead, by means of works enjoined on the living, they are applied, not in the way of judicial absolution, but in the way of payment (per modum solutionis). For as when a person gives alms, or fasts, or makes a pilgrimage, on account of the dead, the effect is, not that he obtains absolution for them from their liability to punishment, but he presents to GOD that particular satisfaction for them, in order that GOD, on receiving it, may liberate the dead from the debt of punishment which they had to pay. In like manner, the pope does not absolve the deceased, but offers to GOD, out of the measure of satisfaction, as much as is necessary to free them.”—Id. Their object is “to afford succour to such as have departed real penitents in the love of GOD, yet before they had duly satisfied, by fruits worthy of penance, for sins of commission and omission, and are now purifying in the fire of purgatory; that an entrance may be opened for them into that country, where nothing defiled is admitted.”—Bull. Leo. XII.

“As the power of granting indulgences was given by CHRIST to the Church, and she has exercised it in the most ancient times, this holy synod teaches, and commands, that the use of them, as being greatly salutary to the Christian people, and approved by the authority of councils, shall be retained; and she anathematizes those who say they are useless, or deny to the Church the power of granting them; but in this grant, the synod wishes that moderation, agreeably to the ancient and approved practice of the Church, be exercised; lest, by too great facility, ecclesiastical discipline be weakened.”—Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV. de Indulg.

“The chief pontiffs, by virtue of the supreme authority given them in the Universal Church, have justly assumed the power of reserving some graver criminal causes to their own peculiar judgment.”—Conc. Trid. Sess. XIV. cap. 7. “The more weighty criminal charges against bishops, which deserve deposition and deprivation, may be judged and determined only by the supreme Roman pontiff.”—Conc. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cap. 5.

“No testimony,” says Clementius, “can be produced from any father, or any ancient Church, that either this doctrine, or the practice of such indulgences, was known, or used, for 1200 years.”—Exam. Conc. Trid. de Indulg. c. 4. Many of these indulgences can only be obtained from the supreme pontiff; for obtaining which an office is opened at Rome, and a table of fees, payable to the chancery of Rome, published by authority. The pardon of a heretic is fixed at £36 9_s._; whilst marrying one wife, after murdering another, may be commuted by the payment of £8 2_s._ 9_d._ A pardon for perjury is charged at 9_s._; simony, 10_s._ 6_d._; robbery, 12_s._; seduction, 9_s._; incest, 7_s._ 6_d._; murder, 7_s._ 6_d._ Now, is not this taxation a virtual encouragement to the commission of the most shocking crimes, when absolution for them is granted and proffered on such easy terms? This seems to be, in fact, the establishing a complete traffic for sins, and must be accounted a great source of corruption and depravity.

“These pardons,” says Silvester de Prierio, “are not known to us by the authority of the Scriptures, but by the authority of the Church of Rome, and the popes; which is greater than the authority of the Scriptures.”—Con. Luth. pag. Indul. They were first sanctioned by Urban II., as a reward for those who engaged in a crusade against the Mahometans, for the recovery of Palestine. To these Urban promised the remission of all their sins, and to open to them the gates of heaven.

From these extracts we may learn, that the members of the Church of Rome did formerly, and do now, teach and believe on the subject of indulgences; 1st, That these pardons are to be paid for; 2nd, That they are granted through the merits of the Virgin and of the saints, as well as through the death and sufferings of our blessed Saviour; 3rd, That these pardons are more effectual at Rome than elsewhere, and that they are better at the time of the pope’s jubilee than in other years.

Now in all this, such doctrines do openly and plainly contradict the word of GOD. For in the first place, the prophet Isaiah, instead of calling for money, says, “Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk, without money and without price.” (lv. 1.) Instead of speaking like Tetzel, St. Paul says, “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in CHRIST JESUS, whom GOD hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” (Rom. iii. 24, 25.) And, unlike the pope, “The spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. xxii. 17.)

In the next place, the merits of saints are never said in Scripture to be the cause of their own salvation, or of that of others; for all that are saved are said to be saved through faith in CHRIST; which faith produceth in them good works, as naturally as a tree produceth fruit. St. Peter declares, that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, but only the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST.” (Acts iv. 12.)

And, in the last place, as to the idea, that it is better to worship GOD in one city or country than in another, our LORD has plainly said, No, in his conversation with the woman of Samaria. She said, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. JESUS saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the FATHER.... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the FATHER in spirit and in truth, for the FATHER seeketh such to worship him.” (John iv. 20–23.)

In saluting the Corinthian Church, St. Paul joins with them “all that in every place call upon the name of JESUS CHRIST our LORD, both theirs and ours.” (1 Cor. i. 2.) The Scripture does not tell us of any particular times, in which prayer is more acceptable to GOD than at others; but they exhort us to “seek the LORD while he may be found, and to call upon him while he is near.” (Isa. i. 6.) “To-day, if you will hear his voice, harden not your heart.” (Ps. xcv. 7, 8.) “Boast not thyself of to-morrow, for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.” (Prov. xxvii. 1.) “Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. vi. 2.) So that while GOD thus offers in the Bible, forgiveness through CHRIST, to all who shall repent and believe the gospel; the Church of Rome presumes to tell her people, that it will be better for them, while they profess to repent and believe, to pay their money; and safer for them to come to Rome on jubilee years, or to some other place in a jubilee month, to receive the benefits of their absolution. Surely the people who believe all this, rather than their Bible, are like the Jews whom Jeremiah, in GOD’S name, thus describes:—“My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jer. ii. 13.) Or, rather, it is to be feared, that the whole body, teachers and people, are like those of whom our LORD said, “They be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matt. xv. 14.)—O’Donoghue.

INDULTS, in the Church of Rome, is a power of presenting to benefices, granted to certain persons by the pope. Of this kind is the Indult of kings, and sovereign princes, in the Romish communion, and that of the parliament of Paris. By the Concordat for the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, made between Francis I. and Leo X. in 1516, the king has the power of nominating to bishoprics, and other consistorial benefices in his realm. At the same time, by a particular bull, the pope granted to the king the privilege of nominating to the churches of Bretagne and Provence. The bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, being yielded to the French king by the treaty of Munster, in 1648, Pope Alexander VIII. in 1664, and Clement IX. in 1668, granted the king an Indult for these three bishoprics; and in 1668 the same Pope Clement IX. granted the king an Indult of the same purport, for the benefices in the counties of Rousillon, Artois, and the Low Countries.

In the year 1424, Pope Martin V. granted to the parliament of Paris this right of presentation to benefices, which they declined to accept. Eugenius IV. granted them the like privilege, which did not take effect by reason of a decree of the Council of Basil, which took away all expectative graces. Lastly, at the interview between the emperor Charles V. and King Francis I. at Nice, in 1538, Pope Paul III., who was present as a mediator, gave an Indult to the parliament of Paris, reviving that formerly granted by Eugenius IV.

The cardinals, likewise, have an Indult granted them by agreement between Pope Paul IV. and the sacred college, in 1555, which is always confirmed by the popes at the time of their election. By this treaty or agreement the cardinals have the free disposal of all the benefices depending on them, without being interrupted by any prior collations from the Pope. By this Indult the cardinals are empowered, likewise, to bestow a benefice in commendam.

INFALLIBILITY. In one sense the universal Church is infallible. It has an infallible guide in the Holy Scriptures. Holy Scripture contains all religious truth. And the Church having the Scriptures is so far infallibly guided. But there is no infallible guide to the interpretation of Scripture. If it were so, then there would be an authority above the Scriptures. Hence the wisdom of our twentieth Article: “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to GOD’S word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy writ, yet as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.”

Here the authority of the Church in subordination to Scripture is clearly laid down. To the same effect is our twenty-first Article. “General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of GOD,) they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto GOD. Wherefore things ordained by them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.”—Beveridge.

But although we can have no infallible guide beyond the Scriptures, yet there may be a proper certainty in matters of faith, doctrine, and discipline, without infallibility. This, in his “Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” that great divine, Dr. Waterland, shows from the words of Chillingworth. “Though we pretend not to certain means of not erring in interpreting all Scripture, particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous, yet this, methinks, should be no impediment; but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sense of those places which are so plain and clear that they need no interpreters; and in such we say our faith is contained. If you ask me, how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places? I ask you again, can you be sure that you understand what I or any man else says? GOD be thanked that we have sufficient means to be certain enough of the truth of our faith; but the privilege of not being in possibility of erring, that we challenge not, because we have as little reason as you to do so, and you have none at all. If you ask, seeing we may possibly err, how can we be assured we do not? I ask you again, seeing your eyesight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the sun when you do see it? A pretty sophism! That whosoever possibly may err, cannot be certain that he doth not err. A judge may possibly err in judgment; can he, therefore, never have assurance that he hath judged right? A traveller may possibly mistake his way; must I, therefore, be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my hall to my chamber? Or can our London carrier have no certainty, in the middle of the day, when he is sober and in his wits, that he is in the way to London? These, you see, are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like to your own, as an egg to an egg, or milk to milk.

“Methinks, so subtile a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide difference between authority to do a thing and infallibility in doing it. The former, the doctor, together with the Article of the Church of England, attributeth to the Church, nay, to particular Churches, and I subscribe to his opinion; that is, an authority of determining controversies of faith, according to plain and evident Scripture and universal tradition and infallibility, while they proceed according to this rule. As if there should arise an heretic that should call in question CHRIST’S passion and resurrection, the Church has authority to determine this controversy, and infallible direction how to do it, and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in his errors.

“The ground of your error here is, your not distinguishing between actual certainty and absolute infallibility. Geometricians are not infallible in their own science; yet they are very certain of what they see demonstrated: and carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their rule and square. So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her definitions, whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall proceed according to her rule; yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be certain of the truth of some particular decrees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true.

“Though the Church being not infallible, I cannot believe her in everything she says; yet I can and must believe her in everything she proves, either by Scripture, reason, or universal tradition, be it fundamental or not fundamental. Though she may err in some things, yet she does not err in what she proves, though it be not fundamental. Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of GOD, may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they say the Catholic Church, much more themselves, may possibly err in some fundamental points, is it therefore consequent they can be certain of none such? What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle, may I not, therefore, without any arrogance or inconsequence, conceive myself certain that I understand him in some plain places which carry their sense before them? We pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty that we do not err, but rightly understand those things that are plain, whether fundamental or not fundamental. That GOD is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him; that, &c. These we conceive both true, because the Scripture says so, and truths fundamental, because they are necessary parts of the gospel, whereof our SAVIOUR says, Qui non crediderit, damnabitur.

“I do heartily acknowledge and believe the articles of our faith to be in themselves truths as certain and infallible as the very common principles of geometry or metaphysics; but that there is required of us a knowledge of them and an adherence to them, as certain as that of sense or science; that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation, so that no man can hope to be in a state of salvation but he that finds in himself such a degree of faith, such a strength of adherence; this I have already demonstrated to be a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence.

“Though I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree, infallibly certain, of the truth of the things which we believe, (for this were to know and not believe, neither is it possible unless our evidence of it, be it natural or supernatural, were of the highest degree,) yet I deny not but we ought to be, and may be, infallibly certain that we are to believe the religion of CHRIST. For, 1. This is most certain, that we are in all things to do according to wisdom and reason, rather than against it. 2. This is as certain, that wisdom and reason require that we should believe those things which are by many degrees more credible and probable than the contrary. 3. This is as certain, that to every man who considers impartially what great things may be said for the truth of Christianity, and what poor things they are which may be said against it, either for any other religion, or for none at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that the Christian religion is true, than the contrary. And from all these premises, this conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly certain, that we are firmly to believe the truth of the Christian religion. There is an abundance of arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity; I say, so credible, that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince, that in true wisdom and prudence, the articles of it deserve credit, and ought to be accepted as things revealed by GOD.”—Waterland. Chillingworth.

The Roman Church has no authorized doctrine of infallibility, though its existence is practically assumed, and is bound up with the whole catalogue of usurpations. The Council of Trent defined many minute and unimportant matters, yet on that which involved so much, it published no definition at all; neither pronouncing where the gift is lodged, nor under what conditions it is exercised, nor to what subjects it extends; nay, not even asserting that it exists at all. Suarez says that the pope’s infallibility is a question of faith; Bellarmine, that it is not; and Stapleton, that, though the denial of it is scandalous and offensive, it is perhaps not heretical; while Gerson, with a very large and learned school of Roman theologians, rejects the doctrine altogether. And none of these opinions have been censured.

Again, if we ask whether, in point of fact, any pope has ever been a heretic, we shall get nothing but inconsistent and contradictory replies. Coster says, that not one has ever taught heresy, or fallen into error; and he makes this an argument for the doctrine itself. Pighius goes further, and says, that the pope is so confirmed in the faith, that he could not fall into error either publicly or privately, even if he would; while, on the other hand, there is a multitude of Roman writers, who fully admit the heresies of Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, and the rest; either condemning them absolutely, or extenuating their acts on some special ground. The Council of Pisa, A. D. 1409, in its sentence of deposition against the rivals, pronounces them both heretics. And so previous councils have condemned former popes; yet the question is still in debate.

As a matter of doctrine, then, we have a long line of the greatest theologians that the Roman Church has ever produced, denying in explicit terms that any gift of infallibility at all was conveyed to the bishops of Rome by the words of CHRIST. And on the question of fact we find the very chief defenders of the pope’s prerogatives, admitting that he may deceive men by his example, and lead them into error; and that he may publish decrees, and insert them in the body of canon law, which yet contradict the tradition of the Church and the truth of the gospel. The claim of infallibility, which advances no Scripture proof, except one perverted text; and which is maintained in the face of all these hesitations and contradictions, these disproofs on the one side, and injurious admissions on the other; can be nothing else but a delusion and a fraud.—S. Robins.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. (See Church of Rome, Popery.) On this subject we give the following remarks of Bishop Beveridge:—That the Catholic or universal Church is infallible, so as constantly and firmly to maintain and hold every particular truth delivered in the gospel, in one place or other of it, I think cannot well be denied; but that any particular Church, or the Church of Rome in particular, is infallible, we have expressly denied and opposed in the Thirty-nine Articles, it being there expressly asserted, that “the Church of Rome hath erred,” and that “not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but even in matters of faith.”

Now to prove that the Church of Rome hath erred, even in matters of faith, I think the best way is to compare the doctrine maintained by them with the doctrine delivered in these Articles. For whatsoever is contained in these Articles, we have, or shall, by the assistance of GOD, prove to be consonant to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and, by consequence, to be a real truth. And, therefore, whatsoever is any way contrary to what is here delivered, must needs be an error. And so that besides other errors which the Church of Rome holds, be sure, whereinsoever it differs from the doctrine of the Church of England, therein it errs. Now to prove that the Church of Rome doth hold such doctrines as are contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, I shall not insist upon any particular, though never so eminent, persons amongst them that have delivered many doctrines contrary to ours. For I know, as it is amongst ourselves, that is not an error of our Church which is the error of some one or many particular persons in it; so also amongst them, everything that Bellarmine, Johannes de Turrecremata, Gregorius de Valentia, Alphonsus de Castro, or any of the grandees of their Church, saith, cannot be accounted as an error of their Church if it be false; nor if it be true, as the truth of the whole Church. A Church may be Catholic though it hath many heretics in it; and a Church may be heretical though it hath many Catholics in it. And therefore I say, to prove the doctrine of their Church to be erroneous, I shall not take any notice of the errors of particular persons, but of the errors deliberately and unanimously concluded upon, and subscribed to, and published as the doctrine of that Church, by the whole Church itself met together in council. For the doctrine delivered by a council cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the whole Church there represented. As the doctrine delivered in these Articles, because it was concluded upon in a council of English divines, is accounted the doctrine of the Church of England; so the doctrine concluded upon in a council of Romish divines, cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. And of all the councils they have held, that which I shall pitch upon in this case, is the Council of Trent, both because it was the most general council they ever held, and also because it was held about the same time at Trent that our convocation that composed these Articles was held at London. For it was in the year of our LORD 1562, that our convocation, that concluded upon these Articles, was holden at London; and though the Council of Trent was begun in the year of our LORD 1545, yet it was not concluded nor confirmed till the fifth year of Pope Pius IV., A. D. 1563, as appears from Pope Pius III.’s bull for the confirmation of it. So that our convocation was held within the same time that that council was; and so our Church concluded upon truths here, whilst theirs agreed upon errors there. Neither need we go any further to prove that they agreed upon errors, than by showing that many things that they did then subscribe to, were contrary to what our Church, about the same time, concluded upon. For all our Articles are, as we may see, agreeable to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and they delivering many things quite contrary to the said Articles, so many of them must needs be contrary to Scripture, reason, and Fathers too, and therefore cannot but be errors. And so in showing that the doctrine of the Church of Rome is, in many things, contrary to the Church of England, I shall prove from Scripture, reason, and Fathers, the truth of this proposition, that the Church of Rome hath erred even in matters of faith.

Now, though there be many things wherein the Church of Rome did at that, and so still doth at this, time disagree with ours; yet I shall pick out but some of those propositions that do, in plain terms, contradict these Articles.

As, first, we say, (Art. VI.,) “Scripture is sufficient, &c., and the other books, (viz. commonly called the Apocrypha,) the Church doth not apply them to establish any doctrine.” But the Church of Rome thrusts them into the body of canonical Scriptures, and accounts them as canonical as any of the rest; saying, “But this synod thought good to write down to this decree an index of the holy books, lest any one should doubt which they are that are received by this council. Now they are the under-written. Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, Esdras the first and second, which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Hester, Job, Psalter of one hundred and fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, twelve Lesser Prophets, that is, Osee, &c., two books of the Maccabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, &c. as ours. But if any one doth not receive all these books, with every part of them, as they use to be read in the Catholic (viz. the Roman) Church, and as they are contained in the ancient vulgar Latin edition, for holy and canonical, and shall knowingly contemn the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Secondly, we say that “original sin is the fault and corruption of every man, none excepted.” (Art. IX.) But they say, “but this synod declares it is not their intention to comprehend the blessed and unspotted Virgin Mary, the mother of GOD, in this decree, where it treats of original sin.”

Thirdly, we say, “We are accounted righteous before GOD only for the merit of our LORD JESUS CHRIST by faith, and so justified by faith only.” (Art. XI.) But they say, “If any one say that a sinner is justified by faith only, that he so understand that nothing else is required to attain the grace of justification, and that it is no ways necessary that he should be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will, let him be anathema.”

Fourthly, we say, “Works before justification have the nature of sin.” (Art. XIII.) But they, “If any one say, that all the works which are done before justification, howsoever they are done, are truly sins, or deserve the hatred of GOD; or by how much the more vehemently a man strives to dispose himself for grace, by so much the more grievously doth he sin, let him be anathema.”

Fifthly, we say, “CHRIST was alone without sin.” (Art. XV.) They say, that the Virgin Mary also was. “If any one say, that a man being once justified can sin no more, nor lose his grace, and therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that he can avoid through his whole life all even venial sins, unless by a special privilege from GOD, as the Church holdeth concerning the blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.”

Sixthly, we say, “The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping, and adoration, as well of images as relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of GOD.” (Art. XXII.) But they, “Seeing the Catholic Church taught by the HOLY GHOST out of the Holy Scriptures, and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, in holy councils, and last of all in this general synod, hath taught that there is a purgatory, and that souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the sacrifices of the acceptable altar; this holy synod commands the bishops, that they would diligently study, that the sound doctrine concerning purgatory delivered from the holy Fathers and sacred councils be, by CHRIST’S faithful people, believed, held, taught, and preached everywhere.” And again, “This holy synod commands all bishops and others, that have the charge and care of teaching, that according to the use of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and the consent of the holy Fathers, and the decrees of sacred councils, especially concerning the intercession and invocation of saints, the honour of relics, and the lawful use of images, they diligently instruct the faithful, teaching that the saints, reigning together with CHRIST, do offer up their prayers to GOD for men, and that it is good and profitable simply to invocate or pray unto them,” &c. And that, “the bodies of the holy martyrs, and others, that live with CHRIST, are to be worshipped,” &c. And also, “that images of CHRIST, the GOD-bearing Virgin, and other saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churches, and that due honour and veneration be given to them.” And presently, “But if any one teach or think anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.”

Seventhly, we say, “It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of GOD, and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the church, or to administer the sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.” (Art. XXIV.) But they, “If any one say, that the custom of the Church of Rome, whereby part of the canon and the words of consecration are uttered with a loud voice, is to be condemned, or that mass ought to be celebrated only in the vulgar tongue, or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the cup, for that it is contrary to CHRIST’S institution, let him be anathema.”

Eighthly, we say, “There are but two sacraments.” (Art. XXV.) They, “If any one say, that the sacraments of the new law were not all instituted by JESUS CHRIST our LORD, or that there are more or less than seven, to wit, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, or that any of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament, let him be anathema.”

Ninthly, we say, “Transubstantiation is repugnant to the Scripture, and overthroweth the nature of a sacrament.” (Art. XXVIII.) But they, “But because CHRIST our Redeemer said, that that which he offered under the shape of bread was truly his body, therefore it was always believed in the Church of GOD; and, last of all, this holy synod doth now declare it, that, by the consecration of bread and wine is made the changing of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of CHRIST our LORD, and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his blood; which change is fitly and properly called, by the holy Catholic Church, transubstantiation.”

Tenthly, we say, “The sacrament of our LORD’S supper is not to be worshipped.” (Art. XXVIII.) But they, “There is therefore no place of doubting left, but that all the faithful of CHRIST, according to the custom always received in the Catholic Church, should give to this most holy sacrament, in the adoration of it, that worship of service which is due to the true GOD.”

Eleventhly, we say, “The cup of the LORD is not to be denied to the lay-people.” (Art. XXX.) But they, “If any one say, that, from the command of GOD and the necessity of salvation, all and every believer in CHRIST ought to receive both kinds of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, let him be anathema.”

Twelfthly, we say, “The sacrifices of the mass are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” (Art. XXXI.) But they, “If any one say that in the mass there is not a true and proper sacrifice offered to GOD, or that to be offered is nothing else but for CHRIST to be given to us to eat, let him be anathema.”

There are many other things wherein the doctrine established by the Church of Rome contradicteth ours; but these may be enough to show both the falseness of the calumny that ignorant people put upon our Church of England, as if it was returning to Popery, whereas the doctrine established by our Church doth, in so many and plain terms, contradict the established doctrine of theirs; and also it shows the truth of this part of our doctrine, that some part of theirs is false. For seeing whatsoever is here set down as the doctrine of our Church, is grounded upon Scripture, consented to by reason, and delivered by the Fathers, it cannot but be true doctrine; and seeing theirs do so frequently contradict ours, it cannot but in such things that are so contradictory to ours be false doctrine. And therefore we may well conclude, that even the Church of Rome too hath erred, yea, in matters of faith, and that if she denies it, she must add that to the rest of her errors.—Beveridge.

Concerning the pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome, the celebrated Bishop Bull observes, “We Protestants profess and prove, by most evident arguments, that the Church of Rome hath in sundry points erred, and is guilty of innovation. The patrons of that Church, not able to answer those arguments of ours, tell us this cannot be; that the Church of Rome is infallible, and cannot possibly be guilty of such innovation. Is not this an admirable way of reasoning and disputation? Can the Romanists produce arguments to prove that their Church cannot err, so clear and evident as these alleged by us to demonstrate that she hath erred? Surely no. To make this plain, if I can be infallibly certain that my senses, rightly disposed, and all due requisites to sensation supposed, are infallible, and cannot be deceived about their proper objects (and if I cannot be assured of this, the apostles had no infallible assurance of that which is the foundation of the Christian faith, the resurrection of CHRIST, which was evidenced to them by their testimony of sense, and that testimony pronounced infallible, Acts i. 3; 1 John i. 1, 2); then I may be infallibly certain that the Church of Rome is not infallible, yea, that she hath grossly erred in her doctrine of transubstantiation, teaching the bread and wine, after the words of consecration, to be turned into the very flesh and blood of CHRIST, which yet all my senses assure me to remain still the same in nature and substance, that is, bread and wine. If I can be infallibly certain that CHRIST himself is infallible, that he would not, could not, appoint an institution that should be dangerous and scandalous to his Church, viz. of receiving the holy eucharist in both kinds; if I can be infallibly certain that the whole Church of CHRIST, that was under the guidance and direction of the apostles, were not grossly deceived, and engaged by the apostles themselves in a practice dangerous and scandalous (and of this I may be as infallibly sure as I am of the truth of the gospel itself); then I may be infallibly certain that the Church of Rome not only may err, but hath grossly erred in that determination of hers, whereby she rejects (in the Council of Constance) communion in both kinds, as a dangerous and scandalous practice. And in the same manner we might proceed to show the falsehood of divers other determinations of the Church of Rome, if this paper would permit; but these are sufficient to any person that shall consult his serious reason. Indeed, I look upon it as a wonderful both just and wise providence of GOD, that he hath suffered the Church of Rome to fall into such gross errors, (which otherwise it is scarce imaginable how men in their wits, that had not renounced not only the Scriptures, but their reason, yea, and their senses too, could be overtaken with,) and to determine them for articles of faith. For hereby a person of the meanest capacity (so he be sincere, and not under the prejudice of education) may evidently discern with what a strange kind of impudence that Church arrogates to herself an infallibility in all her determinations. And for such of our Church that have been informed of these things, and yet shall leave our communion, and follow the guidance of that Church upon the account of her infallibility, I fear they are in the number of those miserable persons described by the apostle, (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12,) who are given up to strong delusion, that they may believe a lie, &c. That which follows in the text I dread to mention; GOD avert it from them!”

INFANT BAPTISM. (See Baptism, Infant.)

INFIRMARIAN. An officer in a monastery, who had the care of the sick and infirm. A dignitary in Nice cathedral was so called.—Jebb.

INFINITY. An attribute of GOD. The idea of infinity or immensity is so closely connected with that of self-existence, that, because it is impossible but something must be infinite, independently and of itself, therefore it must of necessity be self-existent: and because something must of necessity be self-existent, therefore it is necessary that it must likewise be infinite. A necessarily existent being must be everywhere as well as always unalterably the same. For a necessity, which is not everywhere the same, is plainly a consequential necessity only, depending upon some external cause. Whatever therefore exists by an absolute necessity in its own nature, must needs be infinite, as well as eternal. To suppose a finite being to be self-existent, is to say, that it is a contradiction for that being not to exist, the absence of which may yet be conceived without a contradiction; which is the greatest absurdity in the world.

From hence it follows, that the infinity of the self-existent Being must be an infinity of fulness, as well as of immensity; that is, it must not only be without limits, but also without diversity, defect, or interruption. It follows, likewise, that the self-existent Being must be a most simple, unchangeable, incorruptible Being, without parts, figure, motion, divisibility, or any other such properties, as we find in matter. For all these things do plainly and necessarily imply finiteness in their very notion, and are utterly inconsistent with complete infinity.

As to the particular manner in which the Supreme Being is infinite, or everywhere present—this is as impossible for our finite understandings to comprehend and explain, as it is for us to form an adequate idea of infinity. The schoolmen have presumed to assert, that the immensity of GOD is a point, as his eternity (they think) is an instant. But this being altogether unintelligible, we may more safely affirm, that the Supreme Cause is at all times equally present, both in his simple essence, and by the immediate and perfect exercise of all his attributes, to every point of the boundless immensity, as if it were really all but one single point.—Clarke.

INITIATED. In the early ages of the Church, this term was applied to those who had been baptized, and admitted to a knowledge of the higher mysteries of the gospel. The discipline of the Church at that period, made it necessary that candidates for baptism should pass through a long probation, in the character of catechumens. While in this preparatory state, they were not allowed to be present at the celebration of the eucharist; and in sermons and homilies in their presence, the speaker either waived altogether any direct statement of the sublimer doctrines of Christianity, or alluded to them in an obscure manner, not intelligible to the uninitiated, but sufficiently clear to be interpreted by those for whom they were intended, viz. the baptized or initiated. Hence the phrase so common in the homilies of the Fathers, “the initiated understand what is said.”

INNOCENTS’ DAY. One of the holy-days of the Church. Its design is to commemorate one of the most thrilling events in the gospel history. The innocents were they who suffered death under the cruel decree of Herod, who thought, by a general slaughter of young children, to have accomplished the death of the infant JESUS. They are so called from the Latin term innocentes or innocui, harmless babes, altogether incapable of defending themselves from the malice of their inhuman persecutors. The celebration of the martyrdom of these innocents was very ancient. It occurs on the 28th of December.

INQUISITION. A tribunal, or court of justice, in Roman Catholic countries, erected by the popes for the examination and punishment of heretics.

Before the conversion of the empire to Christianity, there was no other tribunal, for the inquiry into matters of faith and doctrine, but that of the bishops; nor any other way of punishing obstinate heretics, but that of excommunication. But the Roman emperors, being converted to Christianity, thought themselves obliged to interpose in the punishment of crimes committed against GOD, and for this purpose made laws, (which may be found in the Theodosian and Justinian codes,) by which heretics were sentenced to banishment and forfeiture of estates. Thus there were two courts of judicature against heretics, the one spiritual, the other civil. The ecclesiastical court pronounced upon the right, declared what was heresy, and excommunicated heretics. When this was done, the civil courts undertook the prosecution, and punished those, in their persons and fortunes, who were convicted of heresy.

This method lasted till after the year 800. From this time the jurisdiction of the Western bishops over heretics was enlarged, and they had now authority both to convict and punish them, by imprisonment, and several acts of discipline, warranted by the canons and custom: but they could not execute the imperial laws of banishment upon them. Matters stood thus until the 12th century, when the great growth and power of heresies (as they were called) began to give no small disturbance to the Church. However, the popes could do no more than send legates and preachers to endeavour the conversion of heretics, particularly the Albigenses, who about this time were the occasion of great disturbances in Languedoc. Hither Father Dominic and his followers (called from him Dominicans) were sent by Pope Innocent III., with orders to excite the Catholic princes and people to extirpate heretics, to inquire out their number and quality, and to transmit a faithful account thereof to Rome. Hence they were called Inquisitors; and this gave birth to the formidable tribunal of the Inquisition, which was received in all Italy, and the dominions of Spain, excepting the kingdom of Naples, and the Low Countries, where Charles V., and after him Philip II. of Spain, endeavouring to establish it, in 1567, by the Duke of Alva, thereby incurred the loss of the United Provinces.

This tribunal takes cognizance of heresy, Judaism, Mahometanism, and polygamy; and the people stand in so much fear of it, that parents deliver up their children, husbands their wives, and masters their servants, to its officers, without daring in the least to murmur. The prisoners are shut up in frightful dungeons, where they are kept for several months, till they themselves turn their own accusers, and declare the cause of their imprisonment; for they are never confronted with witnesses. Their friends go into mourning, and speak of them as dead, not daring to solicit their pardon, lest they should be brought in as accomplices. When there is no shadow of proof against the pretended criminal, he is discharged, after a tedious imprisonment, and the loss of the greatest part of his effects.

The sentence against the prisoners of the Inquisition is publicly pronounced, and with extraordinary solemnity. This is called Auto da fé, that is, Act or Decree of Faith. In Portugal, they erect a theatre, capable of holding 3000 persons, on which they place a very rich altar, and raise seats on each side in the form of an amphitheatre, where the criminals are placed; over against whom is a high chair, whither they are called one by one, to hear their doom, pronounced by one of the Inquisitors. The prisoners know their doom by the clothes they wear that day. Those who wear their own clothes, are discharged upon payment of a fine. Those who have a Santo Benito, or straight yellow coat without sleeves, charged with St. Andrew’s cross, have their lives, but forfeit their effects. Those who have the resemblance of flames, made of red serge, sewed upon their Santo Benito, without any cross, are pardoned, but threatened to be burnt, if ever they relapse. But those who, besides these flames, have on their Santo Benito their own picture, environed with figures of devils, are condemned to die. The Inquisitors, who are ecclesiastics, do not pronounce the sentence of death, but form and read an act, wherein they say, that the criminal, being convicted of such a crime by his own proper confession, is delivered with much reluctancy to the secular power, to be punished according to his demerits. This writing they give to seven judges, who attend at the right side of the altar. These condemn the criminal to be first hanged, and then burnt: but Jews are burnt alive. The public place for execution in Portugal is called Roussi, whither the Confraternity of Mercy attend, and pray for the prisoner.

The Inquisition of Goa, in the Indies, is very powerful, the principal inquisitor having more respect showed him than either the archbishop or viceroy. The criminals, sentenced by this tribunal to die, are clad much after the same manner as in Portugal. Such as are convicted of magic, wear paper caps in the form of sugar-loaves, covered with flames and frightful figures of devils. All the criminals go in procession to a church chosen for the ceremony, and have each of them a godfather, who is answerable for their forthcoming after the ceremony is over. In this procession the criminals walk barefooted, carrying lighted tapers in their hands: the least guilty march foremost. After the last of them that are to be discharged, comes one carrying a crucifix, and followed by those who are to die. The next day after the execution, the pictures of the executed are carried to the church of the Dominicans. The head only is represented surrounded with firebrands, and underneath is written the name, quality, and crime of the person executed.

The Inquisition of Venice, consisting of the pope’s nuncio residing there, the patriarch of Venice, the father inquisitor, and two senators, is nothing near so severe as those of Spain and Portugal. It does not hinder the Greeks and Armenians from the exercise of their religion; and it tolerates the Jews, who wear scarlet caps for the sake of distinction. In fine, the power of this tribunal is so limited by the states, that, in the university of Padua, degrees are taken without requiring the candidates to make the profession of faith enjoined by the popes; insomuch that schismatics, Jews, and those they call heretics, daily take their degrees in law and physic there.

The Inquisition of Rome is a congregation of twelve cardinals, and some other officers, and the pope presides in it in person. This is accounted the highest tribunal in Rome. It began in the time of Pope Paul IV., on occasion of the spreading of Lutheranism. The standard of the Inquisition is of red damask, on which is painted a cross, with an olive branch on one side, and a sword on the other: the motto in these words of the 73rd psalm, Exurge, Domine, et judica causam meam.

INSPIRATION. (See Holy Ghost.) The extraordinary and supernatural influence of the Spirit of God on the human mind, by which the prophets and sacred writers were qualified to receive and set forth Divine communications, without any mixture of error. In this sense the term occurs in 2 Tim. iii. 16. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of GOD,” &c. (See Scriptures, Inspiration of.)

The word inspiration also expresses that ordinary operation of the SPIRIT, by which men are inwardly moved and excited both to will and to do such things as are pleasing to GOD, and through which all the powers of their minds are elevated, purified, and invigorated. “There is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the ALMIGHTY giveth them understanding.” (Job xxxii. 8.) In this latter sense the term and its kindred verb frequently appear in the offices of the Church; as in the petitions, “Grant, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good;” “Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit;” “Beseeching thee to inspire continually the universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord;” and

“Come, Holy Ghost, our souls inspire, And lighten with celestial fire;”

“Visit our minds, into our hearts Thy heavenly grace inspire.”

INSTALLATION. The act of giving visible possession of his office to a canon or prebendary of a cathedral, by placing him in his stall. It is also applied to the placing of a bishop in his episcopal throne in his cathedral church; enthronization being said to be proper to archbishops only; but this appears a technical and unreal distinction invented in the middle ages.

The installation of the Knights of the Garter is a religious ceremony, performed in the Chapel of St. George, at Windsor. (See Ashmole’s Institution of the Order of the Garter.) Those of the Knights of the Bath in Henry VII.’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, and of the Knights of St. Patrick in the Cathedral of St. Patrick’s in Dublin, are, according to the statutes of the orders, conducted upon the same model.

INSTITUTION. The act by which the bishop commits to a clergyman the cure of a church.

Canon 40. “To avoid the detestable sin of simony, every archbishop, bishop, or other person having authority to admit, institute, or collate, to any spiritual or ecclesiastical function, dignity, or benefice, shall, before every such admission, institution, or collation, minister to every person to be admitted, instituted, or collated, the oath against simony.”

The following papers are to be sent to the bishop by the clergyman, who is to be instituted or collated:—

1. Presentation to the benefice or cathedral preferment, duly stamped and executed by the patron [or petition, not on stamp, if the person to be instituted happens to be patron of the benefice].

The stamp duty upon presentations is now regulated by the acts 5 & 6 Vict. c. 79, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 72, and it is an ad valorem duty upon the net yearly value of the preferment or benefice, such value to be ascertained by the certificate of the ecclesiastical commissioners for England indorsed upon the instrument of presentation.

The following is the scale of stamp duty to which presentations are liable:—

Where the annual value is under £300 £5 stamp. If it amounts to £300 and is less than £400 10 If it amounts to £400 and is less than £500 15 If it amounts to £500 and is less than £600 20 and so on; an additional £5 being required for every £100 annual value.

In the case of collations, and also of institutions proceeding upon the petition of the patron, the certificate of yearly value must be written upon, and the stamp affixed to, the instrument of collation, or of institution, respectively.

The following is the scale of duty to which collations and institutions proceeding upon petition are liable:—

Where the annual value is under £300 £7 stamp. If it amounts to £300 and is less than £400 12 If it amounts to £400 and is less than £500 17 If it amounts to £500 and is less than £600 22 and so on; an additional £5 being required for every £100 annual value.

In order to procure the certificate of value from the ecclesiastical commissioners, application should be made by the secretary to the commissioners, in the following form:—

Application for Certificate of the Value of a Living under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 79, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 72.

TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND.

The ——, of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, and in the patronage of ——, having become vacant on the —— day of —— last, by the —— of the Rev. ——; and the Rev. —— being about to be —— thereto, the ecclesiastical commissioners for England are requested to certify the net yearly value thereof, according to the provisions of the acts 5 & 6 Vict. c. 79, and 6 and 7 Vict. c. 72.

(Date) ——. (Signature) ——.

In answer to this application, a form of certificate will be sent from the office of the ecclesiastical commissioners, which is to be indorsed on the instrument of presentation, &c., and then transmitted to the same office for signature; after which, the presentation, &c. will, on its being taken to the Stamp Office, be properly stamped.

2. Letters of orders, deacon, and priest.

3. Letters testimonial by three beneficed clergymen, in the following form:—

To the Right Reverend ——, Lord Bishop of ——.

We, whose names are hereunder written, testify and make known, that A. B., clerk, A. M., (or other degree,) presented (or to be collated, as the case may be) to the canonry, &c., &c., (or to the rectory or vicarage, as the case may be,) of ——, in the county of ——, in your lordship’s diocese, hath been personally known to us for the space of three years last past; that we have had opportunities of observing his conduct; that, during the whole of that time, we verily believe that he lived piously, soberly, and honestly; nor have we at any time heard anything to the contrary thereof; nor hath he at any time, as far as we know or believe, held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the United Church of England and Ireland; and, moreover, we believe him in our consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be admitted to the said canonry, or benefice (as the case may be).

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 18—

C. D. rector of ——. E. F. vicar of ——. G. H. rector of ——.

If all the subscribers are not beneficed in the diocese of the bishop to whom the testimonial is addressed, the counter-signature of the bishop of the diocese wherein their benefices are respectively situate is required.

4. A short statement of the title of the patron in case of a change of patron since the last incumbent was presented.

The same subscriptions and declarations are to be made, and oaths taken, as by a clergyman on being licensed to a perpetual curacy. (See Curacy.)

If the clergyman presented, or to be collated, should be in possession of other preferment, it will be necessary for him, (if he wishes to continue to hold a cathedral preferment, or a benefice with the cathedral preferment, or benefice to which he has been presented, or is to be collated,) to look to the provisions of the act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, sect. 1 to sect. 14, before he is instituted, or collated.

INTENTION. Priest’s Intention. On this subject the following is the eleventh canon of the Council of Trent:—“If any shall say that there is not required in the ministers while they perform and confer the sacraments, at least the intention of doing what the Church does, let him be accursed.”

This is a monstrous and fearful assertion, which supposes it to be in the power of every malicious or sceptical priest to deprive the holiest of GOD’S worshippers of the grace which is sought in the sacraments. There is mention of this notion in Pope Eugenius’s letter to the Armenians at the Council of Florence; but this was the first time that a reputed general council sanctioned it. But the Church of Rome is not content with placing all receivers of sacraments at the mercy of the priest’s intention; and when we know how many avowed infidels there have been found in the ranks of her priesthood, this alone (according to her own theory) opens a fearful door to doubt and hesitation, affecting the validity of the ordinations and administrations within her pale since the Council of Trent; but in the sacrament of the holy eucharist she has placed the communicants at the mercy of the baker’s and vintner’s intention, and any malevolent tradesman who supplies the wine and wafers to be used in the LORD’S supper, has it in its power, according to their rubrics, to deprive the communicants of the grace of the sacrament. For, “Si panis non sit triticeus, vel si triticeus, admixtus sit granis alterius generis in tanta quantitate, ut non mancat panis triticeus, vel sit alioqui corruptus: non conficitur sacramentum.” “Si sit confectus de aqua rosacea, vel alterius distillationis, dubium est an conficiatur.” “Si vinum sit factum penitus acetum, vel penitus putridum, vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expressum; vel ei admixtum tantum aquæ ut vinum sit corruptum, non conficitur sacramentum.”—Rubricæ Generales Missalis Rom.

INTERCESSIONS. That part of the Litany in which, having already prayed for ourselves, we now proceed to supplicate God’s mercy for others. The intercessions are accompanied by the response, “We beseech thee to hear us, good LORD.” (See Litany.) The different species of prayer are alluded to by St. Paul, 1 Tim. ii. 1. “I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men.” δεήσεις, προσευχὰς, ἐντεύξεις, εὐχαριστίας.

INTERCESSOR. (See Lord and Jesus.) One who pleads in behalf of another. The title is applied emphatically to our blessed LORD, “who ever liveth to make intercession for us.” The practice of the Romanists in investing angels and departed saints with the character of intercessors, is rejected as being unsanctioned by Catholic antiquity, as resting on no Scriptural authority, and as being derogatory to the dignity of our REDEEMER. (See Invocation, Saints, Idolatry.)

INTERDICT. An ecclesiastical censure, whereby the Church of Rome forbids the administration of the sacraments and the performance of Divine service to a kingdom, province, town, &c. Some people pretend this custom was introduced in the fourth or fifth century; but the opinion that it began in the ninth, is much more probable: there are some instances of it since that age, and particularly Alexander III., in 1170, superciliously put the kingdom of England under an interdict, forbidding the clergy to perform any part of Divine service unless baptism to infants, taking confessions, and giving absolutions to dying penitents, which was the usual restraint of an interdict; but the succeeding popes, for reasons best known to themselves, seldom make use of it.—Broughton.

INTERIM. (Lat.) The name of a formulary, or confession of faith, obtruded upon the Protestants, after the death of Luther, by the emperor Charles V., when he had defeated their forces. It was so called, because it was only to take place in the Interim, till a general council should decide all the points in question between the Protestants and Catholics. The occasion of it was this: the emperor had made choice of three divines, viz. Julius Pflug, bishop of Naumberg, Michael Helding, titular bishop of Sidon, and John Agricola, preacher to the Elector of Brandenburg; who drew up a project consisting of twenty-six articles concerning the points of religion in dispute between the Catholics and Protestants. The controverted points were, the state of Adam before and after his fall; the redemption of mankind by JESUS CHRIST; the justification of sins; charity and good works; the confidence we ought to have in God, that our sins are remitted; the Church, and its true marks; its power, authority, and ministers; the pope and bishops; the sacraments; the mass; the commemoration of saints; their intercession; and prayers for the dead.

The emperor sent this project to the pope for his approbation, which he refused; whereupon Charles V. published the imperial constitution called the Interim, wherein he declared, that “it was his will, that all his Catholic dominions should, for the future, inviolably observe the customs, statutes, and ordinances of the Universal Church; and that those who had separated themselves from it, should either reunite themselves to it, or at least conform to this constitution; and that all should quietly expect the decisions of the general council.” This ordinance was published in the Diet of Augsburg, May 15th, 1548. But this device neither pleased the pope nor the Protestants; the Lutheran preachers openly declared they would not receive it, alleging that it reestablished Popery. Some chose rather to quit their chairs and livings than to subscribe it; nor would the Duke of Saxony receive it. Calvin, and several others, wrote against it. On the other side, the emperor was so severe against those who refused to accept, that he disfranchised the cities of Magdeburg and Constance, for their opposition.—Broughton.

INTERMEDIATE STATE. A term made use of to denote the state of the soul between death and the resurrection. From the Scriptures speaking frequently of the dead sleeping in their graves, many have supposed that the soul sleeps till the resurrection, i. e. is in a state of entire insensibility. But against this opinion, and that the soul, after death, enters immediately into a state of conscious happiness or misery, though not of final reward or punishment, the following passages seem to be conclusive: Matt. xvii. 3; Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. v. 6; Phil. i. 21; Luke xvi. 22, 23; Rev. vi. 9. (See Hell.)

INTONATION, properly speaking, the recitation by the chanter, or rector chori, of the commencing words of the psalm or hymn, before the choir begins: as is often practised in the English choirs, with respect to the Venite, the Te Deum, the Nicene Creed, and the Gloria in Excelsis. The intonations of the Gregorian Psalm chant are regularly prescribed. Intonation is also applied to the commencement of each verse of the Canticles (sung however by the choir) before the reciting note. The intonations are the same as in the psalm chants; but in the latter they are confined to the first verse of each psalm. The word is sometimes, but inaccurately, used for the chanting of the services by the priest or minister in the musical tone proper to choirs—Jebb.

INTROIT. In the ancient Church a psalm was sung or chanted immediately before the collect, Epistle, and Gospel. As this took place while the priest was entering within the septum or rails of the altar, it acquired the name of Introitus or Introit.

Cardinal Bona says that Introits, as used in the Roman Church, were introduced by Pope Cœlestine (A. D. 422–432). The Introit consists of one or more verses, generally from the Psalms, but sometimes from other parts of Scripture. This anthem is the Introit, properly so called. Then follows a verse from the psalm (anciently a whole psalm): then the Gloria Patri, after which the Introit, or commencing anthem, is repeated. The First Prayer Book of Edward VI., (A. D. 1549,) appoints special psalms to be used as Introits on all Sundays and holy-days. These differ altogether from the Roman Introits, both in their selection and in their construction. They are entire psalms, with the Gloria Patri, and without any verse. The psalm or hymn now universally sung in our churches before the Communion Service, may be said to represent the Introit, as Bishop Bull observes. “In cathedral or mother churches there is still a decent distinction between the two services: for before the priest goes to the altar to read the second service, there is a short but excellent anthem sung, in imitation whereof in the churches of London, and in other greater churches of the country, instead of that anthem there is part of a psalm sung.”—Jebb.

In Clifford’s Introduction, (1664,) it appears that a voluntary at that time preceded the Communion Service at St. Paul’s. Shortly after this time, the custom arose, now universal in choirs, of singing a Sanctus in this place: St. Paul’s, Westminster, and Canterbury were the first to adopt it. In parish churches, a metrical psalm is usually sung in this place, and very properly.

INVENTION OF THE HOLY CROSS. A festival kept by the Church of Rome, in memory of the day on which they affirm our SAVIOUR’S cross was found by the empress Helena, in the time of Constantine the Great; concerning which the following story has been fabricated. That princess being at Jerusalem, was informed that the cross of our SAVIOUR was buried in the sepulchre, upon which she ordered them to dig, when they found the cross and the nails, together with the crosses of the two thieves: but the wood on which the inscription was made being separated from the cross, they could not distinguish that of our SAVIOUR from the others, till Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, found out the following expedient: he ordered a dying woman to be brought and laid upon the crosses, two of which gave her no manner of relief, but being set upon the third, she perfectly recovered from the first moment she touched it, whereby they plainly discovered that it was the same on which our SAVIOUR suffered. The empress built a stately church in the place where the cross was found, where she left some part of the wood richly ornamented, carrying the rest with the nails to Constantinople.

INVESTITURE. The act of conferring a bishopric, by delivering a pastoral staff or ring. Concerning the right of investiture, violent disputes arose in the middle ages, between the emperors and the popes, for an account of which the reader is referred to Mosheim, Cent. XI. part ii. chap. 2, the account being too long for insertion here.

INVISIBLES. A distinguishing name given to the disciples of Osiander, Flacius Illyricus, Swenkfeld, &c., being so denominated because they denied the perpetual visibility of the Church. Palmer remarks, that the reformed seem generally to have taught the doctrine of the visibility of the Church, until some of them deemed it necessary, in consequence of their controversy with the Romanists, who asked them where their Church existed before Luther, to maintain that the Church might sometimes be invisible. This mistaken view appears in the Belgic Confession, and was adopted by some of the Protestants; but it arose entirely from their error in forsaking the defensive ground which their predecessors had taken at first, and placing themselves in the false position of claiming the exclusive title of the Church of CHRIST, according to the ordinary signification of the term. Jurieu, a minister of the French Protestants, has shown this, and has endeavoured to prove that the Church of CHRIST is essentially visible, and that it never remained obscured, without ministry or sacraments, even in the persecutions, or in the time of Arianism. The same truth has been acknowledged by several denominations of dissenters in Britain.

INVITATORY. Some text of Scripture, adapted and chosen for the occasion of the day, and used in ancient times before the Venite, which is also called the Invitatory Psalm.

The Invitatories, as given in the Roman Breviaries, are two verses, “Adoremus Dominum, qui fecit nos,” and “qui fecit nos:” the former sung before and after the psalm, and at the end of the 2nd, 6th, and 1Oth verses; and the latter at the end of the 4th and 8th.—Jebb.

INVOCATION. The commencing part of the Litany, containing the invocation of each Person of the Godhead, severally, and of the Blessed Trinity in Unity. This distinction is made in the margin of Nicholls’s edition of the Common Prayer.

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. The thirty-fifth canon of the Council of Laodicea runs thus: “It does not behove Christians to leave the Church of GOD, and go and invoke angels, and make assemblies; which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one be detected idling in their secret idolatry, let him be accursed, because he has forsaken our LORD JESUS CHRIST, the SON of GOD, and gone to idolatry.” This plain testimony of the fathers of the primitive Church, against the invocation and worshipping of angels, which is denounced as idolatry, is not to be set aside by all the ingenuity of the Roman writers.—See their attempts, Labbe and Cossart, i. 1526. The subtle distinctions of Latria, Dulia, and the rest, had not entered the imagination of Theodoret when he cited this canon as condemning the worshipping of angels, σύνοδος ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας νόμῳ κεκώλυκε τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσεύχεσθαι (Comm. Coloss. ii. 18); nor into that of Origen, who expressly says, that men ought not to worship or adore the angels, for that all prayer and supplication, and intercession and thanksgiving, should be made to God alone, (Contra Celsum, v. § 4,) and that right reason forbids the invocation of them.—Ibid. § 5.

But in the twenty-fifth session of the Popish Council of Trent, the synod thus rules: “Of the invocation, veneration, and relics of the saints, and the sacred images, the holy synod commands the bishops and others who have the office and care of instruction, that according to the custom of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has been received from the first ages of the Christian religion, the consent of the holy Fathers, and the decrees of the sacred councils, they make it a chief point diligently to instruct the faithful concerning the intercession and invocation of saints, the honour of relics, and the lawful use of images, teaching them that the saints reigning together with CHRIST, offer to GOD their prayers for men; that it is good and useful to invoke them with supplication, and, on account of the benefits obtained from GOD through his SON JESUS CHRIST our LORD, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour, to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and assistance; but that they who deny that the saints enjoying eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invoking them that they may pray for each of us, is idolatry; or that it is contrary to the word of GOD, and opposed to the honour of the one Mediator between GOD and man; or that it is folly, either by word or thought, to supplicate them who are reigning in heaven; are impious in their opinions.

“Also that the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and others living with CHRIST, which were living members of CHRIST, and the temple of the HOLY GHOST, and are by him to be raised to eternal life, and glorified, ought to be venerated by the faithful; by means of which the faithful receive many benefits. So that they who declare that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of the saints, or that the honour which the faithful pay to them and other sacred monuments is useless, and that it is in vain to celebrate the memory of the saints for the sake of obtaining their assistance, are utterly to be condemned, as the Church already has condemned them, and does so at the present time.

“Moreover, that the images of CHRIST, of the Virgin Mother of GOD, and other saints, are to be especially had and retained in the churches; and due honour and veneration to be given to them, not because it is supposed that there is any divinity or virtue in them on account of which they are to be worshipped, nor because anything is to be asked of them, nor that confidence is to be placed in images, as of old was done by the heathens, who placed their hope in idols, but because the honour which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent; so that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and fall down, we worship CHRIST, and venerate the saints, whose likeness they bear. That is what has been sanctioned by the decrees of the councils against the opposers of images, especially those of the second Nicene Synod.

“But let the bishops diligently teach that by stories of the mysteries of our redemption, expressed in pictures or other representations, the people are taught and confirmed in commemorating and carefully bearing in mind the articles of faith, as also that great advantage is derived from all the sacred images, not only because the people are thereby reminded of the benefits and gifts which CHRIST has conferred upon them, but also because the miracles of GOD by the saints, and their wholesome examples, are submitted to the eyes of the faithful, that they may give thanks to GOD for them, and dispose their lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love GOD, and to cultivate religion.

“Canon. If any shall teach or think contrary to these decrees, let him be accursed.”

The first council which decreed this invocation and intercession, is denounced by the Romanists themselves as schismatical and heretical; it was the Council at Constantinople, under Constantine Copronymus. Nor have all the researches of the Romish advocates availed to adduce from the early ages one single writer, layman or ecclesiastic, who has enjoined this practice as a duty. All that they have succeeded in showing is, that in the course of the first five centuries several individual writers are to be found who commend the practice as useful. Against these we will cite the following; and from a comparison of the passages cited on both sides, it will be clear that although, notwithstanding the reproof of the apostle, (Col. ii. 18,) the invocation of angels, and afterwards of saints, obtained in some places in the Christian Church, it was always an open point which men were free to reject or not, as they might think fit; and that, therefore, both the Council of Copronymus in the eighth century, and the Council of Trent in the sixteenth, were violating ecclesiastical tradition, when by their anathemas they sought to abridge Christian liberty by confirming a corrupt and foolish custom; especially when the caution of the apostle Paul, and the decree of the Council of Laodicea, are taken into consideration. It is a remarkable thing that, among all the liturgies which Messrs. Kirke and Berrington have cited in their volume, entitled, “The Faith of the Catholics,” Lond. 1830, amounting to eleven, only one is to be found, and that of the Nestorian heretics, containing an invocation to a saint for intercession:—thus showing how wide a distinction is to be drawn between the excited expressions of individual writers, and the authorized practice of the Church. All the other liturgies do no more than the Roman canon of the mass; viz. 1st, assume, generally, that the saints departed pray for the saints militant; and, 2ndly, pray to GOD to hear their intercessions. This is no more tantamount to an invocation of the saints, than a prayer to GOD for the assistance of the angels would be tantamount to a prayer to the angels themselves.—Perceval.

IRELAND. (See Church of Ireland.)

IRVINGITES. The followers of Edward Irving, a minister of the Scottish establishment, who was born in 1792, and died in 1834. In 1822, he was appointed to a Scotch presbyterian congregation, and for some years officiated in a chapel with great applause, but was at length deposed from his ministry by the presbytery, for holding an awful heresy concerning our blessed LORD, whose nature he considered as peccable, or capable of sin. He still continued, however, to act as minister of a congregation in London. Both in Scotland and in England he had many followers; and since his death Irvingism has found its way into Germany and other foreign countries. The first form which his party assumed was connected with certain notions concerning the millennium, and the immediately impending advent of our blessed LORD: and presently after, as precursors of the expected event, miraculous gifts of tongues, of prophecy, of healing, and even of raising the dead, were pretended to by his followers; though Irving himself never pretended to those more miraculous endowments. Superadded to these notions, was a singularly constructed hierarchy, of apostles, angels, &c. They affect the name of Apostolicals.

The Irvingites call themselves The Catholic and Apostolic Church; and the following sketch of the denomination was supplied by a member to Mr. Horace Mann, and printed by him in the Census Report of 1851.

“The body to which this name is applied make no exclusive claim to it: they simply object to be called by any other. They acknowledge it to be the common title of the one Church baptized into Christ, which has existed in all ages, and of which they claim to be members. They have always protested against the application to them of the term ‘Irvingites;’ which appellation they consider to be untrue and offensive, though derived from one whom, when living, they held in high regard as a devoted minister of Christ.

“They do not profess to be, and refuse to acknowledge that they are, separatists from the Church established or dominant in the land of their habitation, or from the general body of Christians therein. They recognise the continuance of the Church from the days of the first apostles, and of three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, by succession from the apostles. They justify their meeting in separate congregations from the charge of schism, on the ground of the same being permitted and authorized by an ordinance of paramount authority, which they believe God has restored for the benefit of the whole Church. And so far from professing to be another sect in addition to the numerous sects already dividing the Church, or to be ‘the One Church,’ to the exclusion of all other bodies, they believe that their special mission is to reunite the scattered members of the one body of Christ.

“The only standards of faith which they recognise are the three creeds of the Catholic Church—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed, and that called the Creed of St. Athanasius. The speciality of their religious belief, whereby they are distinguished from other Christian communities, stands in this: that they hold apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors, to be abiding ministries in the Church, and that these ministries, together with the power and gifts of the Holy Ghost, dispensed and distributed among her members, are necessary for preparing and perfecting the Church for the second advent of the Lord; and that supreme rule in the Church ought to be exercised, as at the first, by twelve apostles, not elected or ordained by men, but called and sent forth immediately by God.

“The congregations which have been authorized as above stated, are placed under the pastoral rule of angels or bishops, with whom are associated, in the work of the ministry, priests and deacons. The deacons are a distinct and separate order of ministers, taken from the midst of, and chosen by, the respective congregations in which they are to serve, and are ordained either by apostles or by angels receiving commission thereunto. The priests are first called to their office by the word through the prophets, (“no man taking this honour to himself,”) and then ordained by apostles; and from among the priests, by a like call and ordination, are the angels set in their places.

“With respect to the times of worship, the holy eucharist is celebrated, and the communion is administered, every Lord’s day, and more or less frequently during the week, according to the number of priests in each particular congregation; and, where the congregations are large, the first and last hours of every day, reckoning from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M., are appointed for Divine worship; and, if there be a sufficient number of ministers, there are, in addition, prayers daily at 9 A. M. and 3 P. M., with other services for the more special object of teaching and preaching.

“In the forms of worship observed, the prayers and other devotions to be found in the principal liturgies of the Christian Church are introduced by preference, wherever appropriate; and in all their services the bishops and clergy of the Catholic Church, and all Christian kings, princes, and governors, are remembered before God. It may also be observed, that in their ritual observances and offices of worship external and material things have their place. They contend that, as through the washing of water men are admitted into the Christian covenant, and as bread and wine duly consecrated are ordained to be used not merely for spiritual food, but for purposes of sacramental and symbolic agency, so also that the use of other material things, such as oil, lights, incense, &c., as symbols and exponents of spiritual realities, belongs to the dispensation of the gospel.

“Besides free-will offerings, the tenth of their increase, including income of every description, is brought up to the Lord, (it being regarded as a sacred duty that tithe should be dedicated to his service alone,) and is apportioned among those who are separated to the ministry.

“In England there are about 30 congregations, comprising nearly 6000 communicants; and the number is gradually on the increase. There are also congregations in Scotland and Ireland, a considerable number in Germany, and several in France, Switzerland, and America.”

Of late years, it is said, this denomination has made considerable progress, so that from 1846 to 1851 the number of communicants in England has increased by a third, while great success has been achieved on the continent and in America. Returns from 32 chapels (chiefly in the southern counties of England) have been furnished to the Census Office. These contained (allowing for one chapel for which the sittings are not mentioned) accommodation for 7437 persons. The attendance, on the Census-Sunday, was, (making an estimated addition for two chapels with regard to which no information was received,) Morning, 3176; Afternoon, 1659; Evening, 2707.

ISAIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Isaiah is the first of the four greater prophets, the other three being Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. He was of royal blood, his father Amos being brother to Azariah, king of Judah. He prophesied from the end of the reign of Uzziah, to the time of Manasseh; by whose order, according to a Jewish tradition, he was sawn asunder with a wooden saw. He delivered his predictions under the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The first five chapters of his prophecy relate to the reign of Uzziah; the vision of the sixth chapter happened in the time of Jotham; the next chapters, to the fifteenth, include his prophecies under the reign of Ahaz; and those that happened under the reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh are related in the next chapters, to the end.

The style of this prophet is noble, sublime, and florid. Grotius calls him the Demosthenes of the Hebrews. He had the advantage above the other prophets of improving his diction by conversing with men of the greatest parts and elocution. This added a gravity, force, and vehemence to what he said. He impartially reproved the vices and disorders of the age he lived in, and openly displayed the judgments of GOD, which were hanging over the Jewish nation; at the same time denouncing vengeance on those foreign nations, which were instrumental in inflicting those judgments, viz. the Assyrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Moabites, Edomites, Tyrians, and Arabians. He clearly foretold the deliverance of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, by the hand of Cyrus king of Persia; and this he expressly mentioned an hundred years before it came to pass. But the most remarkable of his predictions are those concerning the MESSIAH. He, in plain terms, foretold, not only the coming of CHRIST in the flesh, but all the great and memorable circumstances of his life and death. He speaks, says St. Jerome, rather of things past than to come; and he may rather be called an Evangelist, than a Prophet.

Besides the prophecies of Isaiah still extant, he wrote a book concerning the actions of Uzziah, cited in the Chronicles; but it is now lost. Origen, Epiphanius, and St. Jerome speak of another book, called “The Ascension of Isaiah.” Some of the Jews ascribe to him the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Solomon’s Song, and the Book of Job.

ITALIC VERSION. The old Italic Version, or Vetus Itala, is the name usually given to that translation of the sacred Scriptures into the Latin language, which was generally used until the time of St. Jerome, being distinguished for its clearness and fidelity among the many versions then existing. It was however translated from the Greek in the Old Testament, as well as the New; and is supposed to have been executed in the early part of the 2nd century. St. Jerome, dissatisfied with the ruggedness and imperfections of the old Italic, first commenced a revision of it, which, however, he did not complete; and afterwards made a new translation, which at first gradually, but at length universally, obtained in the Latin Church, under the name of the Vulgate. Of the old Italic Version, the Psalter and Book of Job, corrected by Jerome, remain; and are published in the Benedictine edition of St. Jerome’s Works. The apocryphal books of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, the two Books of Maccabees, and perhaps, as may be collected from Dr. Hody, the remaining chapters of Esther, and the Song of the Three Children, also belong to this translation. (See Vulgate and Psalter.) Consult Walton’s Prolegomena, and Hodius de Bibliorum textibus originalibus, (who corrects Walton in one of his statements,) for a full account of this version.

JACOBITES, or JACOBINS. Eastern Christians, so denominated from Jacob, a Syrian, the disciple of Eutyches and Dioscorus, whose heresy he spread so much in Asia and Africa, in the 6th century, that at last, in the 7th, the different sects of the Eutychians were swallowed up by that of the Jacobites, which also comprehended all the Monophysites of the East, i. e. such as acknowledged only one nature in Christ. Their Asian patriarch resides at Caramit, in Mesopotamia; Alexandria is the see of the African one, and he follows the errors of Dioscorus and the Cophti. M. Simon relates that under the name of Jacobins must be included all the Monophysites of the East, whether Armenians, Cophti, or Abyssines, acknowledging but one nature in CHRIST; he adds, the number of the Jacobins, properly so called, is but small, there not being above thirty or forty thousand families of them, which principally inhabit Syria and Mesopotamia: they are divided among themselves, one part embracing, and the other disowning, the communion of the Church of Rome. These last are not all united, having two opposite patriarchs, one at Caramit, and the other at Dorzapharan; besides these two, he says, there is one of the same opinion with the Latins, residing at Aleppo.

JAMES’S, ST., DAY, (July 25th,) the day on which the Church celebrates the memory of the apostle James the Great, or the Elder. He was one of the sons of Zebedee, and brother of St. John. He was the first of the apostles who won the crown of martyrdom. (Acts xii. 2.)

JAMES’S, ST., GENERAL EPISTLE. A canonical book of the New Testament. It was written by St. James the Less, called also the Lord’s brother; who was chosen by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem. The date of this Epistle is placed by Dr. Mills in, or just before, the year 60; two years after which the writer suffered martyrdom, under the high priesthood of Ananus, and procuratorship of Albinus.

This general Epistle is addressed partly to the infidel, and partly to the believing Jews. The writer’s design was to correct the errors, soften the ungoverned zeal, and reform the indecent behaviour, of the former; and to comfort the latter under the hardships they then did, or shortly were to suffer, for the sake of Christianity. It is directed to the Jews and Jewish converts of the dispersion, but no doubt was calculated for the improvement likewise of those Jews, over whom the apostle presided in the special character of their bishop.

This Epistle is the first of the Catholic or General Epistles, in the canon of Scripture; which are so called, because they were written, not to one, but to several Christian Churches.

JANSENISTS, in France, are those who follow the opinions of Jansenius, a doctor of divinity of the university of Louvain, and bishop of Ypres. In the year 1640, the two universities of Louvain and Douay thought fit to condemn the loose doctrine of the Jesuits, particularly Father Molina and Father Leonard Celsus, concerning grace and predestination. This having set the controversy on foot, Jansenius opposed to the doctrine of the Jesuits the sentiments of St. Augustine, and wrote a treatise upon grace, which he entitled Augustinus. The treatise was attacked by the Jesuits, who accused Jansenius of maintaining dangerous and heretical opinions: nor did they stop here, but obtained of Pope Urban VIII., in 1642, a formal condemnation of Jansenius’s treatise. The partisans of Jansenius gave out, that this bull was spurious, and composed by a person entirely devoted to the Jesuits.

After the death of Urban VIII., the affair of Jansenism began to be more warmly controverted, and gave birth to an infinite number of polemical writings concerning Grace. What occasioned some mirth in these disputes was, the titles which each party gave to their writings. One writer published The Torch of St. Augustine; another found Snuffers for St. Augustine’s Torch. F. Veron composed A Gag for the Jansenists: and the like. In the year 1650, sixty-eight bishops of France subscribed a letter to Pope Innocent X., to obtain of him an inquiry into, and condemnation of, the five famous propositions which follow, extracted from Jansenius’s Augustinus:—

I. Some of GOD’S commandments are impossible to be kept by the righteous, even though they are willing to observe them.

II. A man doth never resist inward grace, in the state of fallen nature.

III. In order to merit, or not merit, it is not necessary that a man should have a liberty free from necessity. It is sufficient that he hath a liberty free from restraint.

IV. The Semi-Pelagians were heretics, because they asserted the necessity of an inward preventing grace for every action.

V. It is a Semi-Pelagian opinion to say, that JESUS CHRIST died for all mankind, without exception.

In the year 1652, the pope appointed a congregation for examining into the matter relating to Grace. In this congregation Jansenius was condemned, and the bull of condemnation published, May 31, 1653. After its publication at Paris, the pulpits were filled with violent outcries and alarms against the heresy of the Jansenists. The year 1656 produced the famous “Provincial Letters” of M. Pascal, under the name of Louis de Montalte, in defence of Messieurs de Port Royal, who were looked upon as the bulwark of Jansenism. The same year, Pope Alexander VII. issued another bull, in which he condemned the five propositions of Jansenius. The Jansenists affirm that the five condemned propositions are not to be found in Jansenius’s treatise upon Grace, but that some enemies of Jansenius, having caused them to be printed on a sheet, inserted them in a book, and thereby deceived the pope.

Among the enemies of the Jansenists was a certain sect of fanatics, called Brothers of the Sodality of the blessed Sacrament. They sprung up at Caen, in 1659, and gave out that their smell was so nice, that they could distinguish a Jansenist by the very scent, and that all the clergy in that city, except two, were Jansenists.

At last Clement XI. put an end to the disputes about Jansenism by his constitution of July 17, 1705; in which, after having recited the constitutions of his predecessors in relation to this affair, he declares, that, to pay a proper obedience to the papal constitutions concerning the present question, it is necessary to receive them with a respectful silence. The clergy assembled at Paris approved and accepted this bull, on the 21st of August, the same year; and no one dared to oppose it. This is the famous bull Unigenitus, so called from its beginning with the words, Unigenitus Dei Filius.—Broughton.

Jansenism still exists in Holland, where the archbishop of Utrecht presides over the communion.

JANUARY, THIRTIETH OF. (See Forms of Prayer.)

JEHOVAH. One of the names given in Scripture to Almighty GOD, and peculiar to him, signifying the Being who is self-existent, and gives existence to others.

The name is also given to our blessed SAVIOUR, and is a proof of his Godhead. (Compare Isaiah xl. 3, with Matt. iii. 3, and Isaiah vi., with John xii. 41.) The Jews had so great a veneration for this name, that they left off the custom of pronouncing it, whereby its true pronunciation was forgotten. It is called the Tetragrammaton, (Τετραγράμματον,) or name of four letters, and containing in itself the past and future tenses, as well as the present participle, and signifies, He who was, is, and shall be: i. e. the Eternal, the Unchangeable, the Faithful.

The same veneration seems to have actuated most Christian communities in their translation of the word, rendered in Greek by Κύριος, in Latin by Dominus, and in English by Lord. The word JEHOVAH occurs but four times simply, and five times in composition, in our authorized translation.

JEREMIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. This divine writer was of the race of the priests, the son of Hilkiuh of Anathoth, in the tribe of Benjamin. He was called to the prophetic office, when he was very young, about the thirteenth year of Josiah, and continued in the discharge of it above forty years. He was not carried captive to Babylon with the other Jews, but remained in Judea, to lament the desolation of his country. He was afterwards a prisoner in Egypt, with his disciple Baruch, where it is supposed he died in a very advanced age. Some of the Christian Fathers tell us, he was stoned to death by the Jews for preaching against their idolatry; and some say, he was put to death by Pharaoh Hophra, because of his prophecy against him.

Part of the prophecy of Jeremiah relates to the time after the captivity of Israel, and before that of Judah, from the first chapter to the forty-fourth; and part of it was in the time of the latter captivity, from the forty-fourth chapter to the end. The prophet lays open the sins of the kingdom of Judah with great freedom and boldness, and reminds them of the severe judgments which had befallen the ten tribes for the same offences; he passionately laments their misfortune, and recommends a speedy reformation to them. Afterwards he predicts the grievous calamities that were approaching, particularly the seventy years’ captivity in Chaldea. He likewise foretells their deliverance and happy return, and the recompence which Babylon, Moab, and other enemies of the Jews, should meet with in due time. There are likewise several intimations in this prophecy concerning the kingdom of the Messiah; also several remarkable visions and types, and historical passages relating to those times.

The fifty-second chapter does not belong to the prophecy of Jeremiah, which concludes, at the end of the fifty-first chapter, with these words: “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.” The last, or fifty-second chapter, (which probably was added by Ezra,) contains a narrative of the taking of Jerusalem, and of what happened during the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, to the death of Jechonias. St. Jerome has observed upon this prophet, that his style is more easy than that of Isaiah and Hosea; that he retains something of the rusticity of the village where he was born; but that he is very learned and majestic, and equal to those two prophets in the sense of his prophecy.

JESUITS, or the SOCIETY OF JESUS. A society which, at one period, extended its influence to the very ends of the earth, and proved the main pillar of the papal hierarchy,—which wormed itself into almost absolute power, occupying the high places, and leading captive the ecclesiastical dictator of the world,—must be an object of some curiosity to the inquisitive mind.

Ignatius Loyola, a native of Biscay, is well known to have been the founder of this, nominally, religious order. He was born in 1491, and became first a page to Ferdinand V., king of Spain, and then an officer in his army. In 1521 he was wounded in both legs at the siege of Pampeluna, when having had leisure to study a book of Lives of the Saints, he devoted himself to the service of the Virgin; and his military ardour becoming metamorphosed into superstitious zeal, he went on a pilgrimage into the Holy Land. Upon his return to Europe, he studied in the universities of Spain, whence he removed into France, and formed a plan for the institution of this new order, which he presented to the pope. But, notwithstanding the high pretensions of Loyola to inspiration, Paul III. refused his request, till his scruples were removed by an irresistible argument addressed to his self-interest: it was proposed that every member should make a vow of unconditional obedience to the pope, without requiring any support from the holy see. The order was, therefore, instituted in 1540, and Loyola appointed to be the first general.

The plan of the society was completed by the two immediate successors of the founder, Lainez and Aquaviva, both of whom excelled their master in ability and the science of government; and, in a few years, the society established itself in every Catholic country, acquiring prodigious wealth, and exciting the apprehensions of all the enemies of the Romish faith.

To Lainez are ascribed the Secreta Monita, or secret instructions of the order; which were first discovered when Christian, duke of Brunswick, seized the Jesuits’ college at Paderborn, in Westphalia, at which time he gave their books and manuscripts to the Capuchins, who found these secret instructions among the archives of their rector. After this, another copy was detected at Prague, in the college of the Jesuits.

The Jesuits are taught to consider themselves as formed for action, in opposition to the monastic orders, who retire from the concerns of the world; and in engaging in all civil and commercial transactions, insinuating themselves into the friendship of persons of rank, studying the disposition of all classes, with a view of obtaining an influence over them, and undertaking missions to distant nations, it is an essential principle of their policy, by every means, to extend the Catholic faith. No labour is spared, no intrigue omitted, that may prove conducive to this purpose.

The constitution of the society is monarchical. A general is chosen for life by deputies from the several provinces. His power is supreme and universal. Every member is at his entire disposal, and is required to submit his will and sentiments to his dictation, and to listen to his injunctions, as if uttered by CHRIST himself. The fortune, person, and conscience of the whole society are at his disposal, and he can dispense his order not only from the vows of poverty, chastity, and monastic obedience, but even from submission to the pope whenever he pleases. He nominates and removes provincials, rectors, professors, and all officers of the order, superintends the universities, houses, and missions, decides controversies, and forms or dissolves contracts. No member can express any opinion of his own; and the society has its prisons, independent of the secular authority.

There are four classes of members,—the novitiates or probationers, the approved disciples, the coadjutors, and the professors of the four vows. The education of youth was always considered by them as their peculiar province,—aware of the influence which such a measure would infallibly secure over another generation: and before the conclusion of the sixteenth century the Jesuits had obtained the chief direction of the youthful mind in every Roman Catholic country in Europe. They had become the confessors of almost all its monarchs, and the spiritual guides of nearly every person distinguished for rank or influence. At different periods they obtained the direction of the most considerable courts, and took part in every intrigue and revolution.

Notwithstanding their vow of poverty, they accumulated, upon various pretences, immense wealth. They claimed exemption from tithes under a bull of Gregory XIII., who was devoted to their interests; and, by obtaining a special licence from the court of Rome to trade with the nations whom they professed to convert, they carried on a lucrative commerce in the East and West Indies, formed settlements in different countries, and acquired possession of a large province in South America, (Paraguay,) where they reigned as sovereigns over some hundred thousand subjects.

Their policy is uniformly to inculcate attachment to the Order, and by a pliant morality to soothe and gratify the passions of mankind, for the purpose of securing their patronage. They proclaim the duty of opposing princes who are inimical to the Catholic faith, and have employed every weapon, every artful and every intolerant measure, to resist the progress of Protestantism.

In Portugal, where the Jesuits were first received, they obtained the direction of the court, which for many years delivered to them the consciences of its princes and the education of the people. Portugal opened the door to their missions, and gave them establishments in Asia, Africa, and America. They usurped the sovereignty of Paraguay, and resisted the forces of Portugal and Spain, who claimed it. The court of Lisbon, and even Rome herself, protested in vain against their excesses. The league in France was, in reality, a conspiracy of the Jesuits, under the sanction of Sixtus V., to disturb the succession to the throne of France. The Jesuits’ college at Paris was the grand focus of the seditions and treasons which then agitated the state, and the ruler of the Jesuits was president of the Council of Sixteen, which gave the impulse to the leagues formed there and throughout France. Matthieu, a Jesuit and confessor of Henry III., was called “the Courier of the League,” on account of his frequent journeys to and from Rome at that disastrous period.

In Germany the society appropriated the richest benefices, particularly those of the monasteries of St. Benedict and St. Bernard. Catherine of Austria confided in them, and was supplanted; and loud outcries were uttered against them by the sufferers in Vienna, in the states of Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and elsewhere. Their cruelties in Poland will never be forgotten. They were expelled from Abyssinia, Japan, Malta, Cochin, Moscow, Venice, and other places, for their gross misconduct; and in America and Asia they carried devastation and blood wherever they went. The great object of the persecution of the Protestants in Savoy was the confiscation of their property, in order to endow the colleges of the Jesuits. They had, no doubt, a share in the atrocities of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries. They boasted of the friendship of Catherine de Medicis, who espoused their cause, and under whose influence the massacre of St. Bartholomew was executed. Louis XIV. had three Jesuit confessors, which may explain the revocation of the edict of Nantes.

The Jesuits have been notorious for attempting the lives of princes. The reign of Queen Elizabeth presents a succession of plots. In her proclamation, dated Nov. 15, 1602, she says, that “the Jesuits had fomented the plots against her person, excited her subjects to revolt, provoked foreign princes to compass her death, engaged in all affairs of state, and by their language and writings had undertaken to dispose of her crown.”

Lucius enumerates five conspiracies of the Jesuits against James I. before he had reigned a year. They contrived the Gunpowder Plot. So late as the time of George I. both houses of parliament reported, that the evidence examined by them on the conspiracy of Plunket and Layer had satisfactorily shown that it had for its object the destruction of the king, the subversion of the laws, and the crowning of the Popish pretender; and they state that “Plunket was born at Dublin, and bred up at the Jesuits’ college at Vienna.” Henry III. of France was assassinated by Clement, a Jesuit, in 1589. The Jesuits murdered William, prince of Orange, in 1584. They attempted the life of Louis XV. for imposing silence on the polemics of their order, and were also guilty of innumerable other atrocities.

The pernicious spirit and constitution of this order rendered it early detested by the principal powers of Europe; and while Pascal, by his “Provincial Letters,” exposed the morality of the society, and thus overthrew their influence over the multitude, different potentates concurred, from time to time, to destroy or prevent its establishments. Charles V. opposed the order in his dominions: it was expelled in England by the proclamation of James I. in 1604; in Venice, in 1606; in Portugal, in 1759; in France, in 1764; in Spain and Sicily, in 1767, and suppressed and abolished by Pope Clement XIV. in 1775. Our own age has witnessed its revival, and is even now suffering from the increased energy of its members.

JESUITESSES. An order of nuns, who had monasteries in Italy and Flanders. They followed the Jesuit rules; and though their order was not approved at Rome, yet they had several monasteries, where they had a lady abbess, who took the Jesuit vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They did not confine themselves to their cloisters, but went abroad and preached. They were two English young women, who, by the instigation of Father Gerard, set up this order, intending it for the use of missionaries into England. This order was suppressed by a bull of Pope Urban VIII., A. D. 1630.

JESUS, is the same with the Hebrew name Joshua, or Jehoshua, i. e. Jehovah THE SAVIOUR. As the name Jesus was given to the blessed LORD by Divine command, so was the name of the son of Nun changed by Moses from Hoshea, (the Saviour,) to Joshua; he being a type of our blessed LORD. (Num. xiii. 16.) (See Christ, Messiah, Lord.) The name that was given by the Divine command to the SAVIOUR of the world. He is called CHRIST (anointed), because he was anointed to the mediatorial office, and JESUS (Saviour), because he came to save his people from their sins.

We are to regard him, as he is our SAVIOUR. I will place salvation in JESUS “the SAVIOUR” (Phil. iii. 20),—thus declared by prophecy (Isa. xix. 20), and for this reason so expressly called (Matt. i. 21; Luke i. 31), and the prophecies truly fulfilled (Luke ii. 11; Acts v. 31, xiii. 23), is “the SAVIOUR of the world” (John iv. 42; iii. 17; 1 John iv. 14), “the SAVIOUR of all men” (1 Tim. iv. 10; Luke ix. 56; John xii. 47), who “came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. i. 15; Luke v. 32; Rom. v. 8; 1 John iii. 5), “the LORD and SAVIOUR” (2 Pet. ii. 20; iii. 2), “the captain of their salvation” (Heb. ii. 10). And he is revealed as the only way to salvation thus predicted (Isa. xxxv. 8; xlix. 6; li. 5; lix. 16; lxiii. 1; Joel ii. 32; Matt. i. 21; Acts iv. 12; Heb. ix. 8),—so by himself declared (Matt. xviii. 11; Luke xix. 9),—and by those speaking through the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT (Luke i. 69, with 67; ii. 30, with 26, 27; Acts ii. 21; Eph. ii. 18).

He was sent by GOD for this purpose (John iii. 17; Acts v. 31, xiii. 23; 1 John iv. 14), and is declared to be “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. v. 9; Isa. li. 6, 8),—that “confess” him (Rom. x. 9), “believe on” him (Rom. x. 9; Eph. ii. 8; Acts xvi. 31; x. 43,) and “call on the name of the LORD” (Acts ii. 21),—“to the Jews first” (Rom. i. 16; Isa. xlv. 17; xlvi. 13; lxii. 1, 11; Jer. xxxiii. 15, 16; Zech. ix. 9; Luke i. 69, 77; Acts xi. 19; xv. 11; xiii. 23, 46), “and also to the Greek” (Rom. i. 16),—the Gentiles (Isa. xlv. 22; xlix. 6; li. 5; lii. 10; Luke iii. 6; Acts xxviii. 28; Rom. iii. 29; x. 12; xv. 16; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11.)

To “that blessed hope” we now look (Tit. ii. 13), through “the righteousness of GOD and our SAVIOUR” (of our GOD and SAVIOUR, Gr.) (2 Pet. i. 1),—“our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST” (2 Tim. i. 10; Tit. i. 4; iii. 6). Our salvation has been effected by the sacrifice of himself; “in him have we redemption—the forgiveness of sins;” not purchased “with corruptible things,” but with his own “precious blood” (Eph. i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19), for “he gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. ii. 6). And thus having made “peace through the blood of his cross,” he has “reconciled both”—Jews and Gentiles—“unto GOD in one body.” (Col. i. 20; Eph. ii. 16.) (See Bowing at the name of Jesus.) Joshua, the successor of Moses, is called JESUS in our translation of the New Testament, Acts vii. 45, and Heb. iv. 8. Both names are the same in the LXX. and the Greek Testament, Ἰησοῦς.

JEWS. The general name given the descendants of Abraham, though in strictness it originally belonged only to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with the Levites settled among them, who constituted the kingdom of Judah. It has long been synonymous with Israelites. On their laws and customs the reader must consult the books of Moses. The modern Jews have introduced many very remarkable customs. When any person is buried, his nearest relation keeps the house a week, sitting on the ground all the time, excepting on the sabbath day, when they go to prayers. During this week they do no business. The husband and the wife are to lodge asunder; and there come at least ten people, morning and evening, to say the accustomed prayers. They pray for the soul of the person deceased constantly that week. When the week is ended they go to the synagogue, and light up lamps and pray, and promise to give alms for the soul of the deceased. This charitable service is repeated at the end of every month, and every year. It is customary for the son to say every morning and evening the prayer for his father’s or mother’s soul. They believe a paradise, where the blessed enjoy a beatific vision: and a hell for wicked men, in which some shall continue for ever, others only for a time. No Jew, unless a heretic, or nonconformist to their Rabbins’ rules, shall continue in hell above a year. Their creed consists of thirteen articles:—1. There is one GOD, Creator of all things, all-perfect, all-sufficient. 2. That he is an uncompounded, invisible essence. 3. That he is immaterial. 4. Absolutely eternal. 5. Alone to be worshipped, without any mediators or intercessors. 6. That there have been, and may be, prophets. 7. That Moses was the greatest prophet. 8. That every syllable of the law was given to Moses by inspiration; and that the traditionary expositions of the precepts were entirely a Divine revelation given to Moses. 9. That the law is immutable. 10. That GOD knows and governs all our actions. 11. That he rewards the observance, and punishes the violation, of his laws. 12. That the MESSIAH will appear, but that his coming is delayed. 13. That GOD will raise the dead, and judge all mankind.

They confess to none but GOD Almighty; and this commonly on Mondays, and Thursdays, and all fast-days: on the great day of expiation they repeat their confessions several times.

There are three sects of them in these times. The greatest and first of these is that of the Rabbanim, who, besides the Scriptures, receive the Talmud. The second is the Caraites, who receive only the Scriptures; and the third is that of the Cuthim, of which there are very few, who admit only the Pentateuch, or books of Moses.—Broughton.

JOB. One of the books in the sacred canon, the first of the poetical books of the Old Testament, and probably the most ancient work that exists in any form. There have been many differences of opinion upon almost all imaginable questions concerning this book, the date, the scene, the author, whether it is to be accounted a narrative of real events, or a Divine allegory, being warmly debated by different critics. That Job is a real person, seems however to be determined by the mention of him with Noah and Daniel, (of whose proper personal existence and history there can be no doubt,) in the fourteenth chapter of Ezekiel. Into the other questions it is less important to enter.

JOHN, ST., BAPTIST’S DAY. This festival, in honour of St. John the Baptist, is observed on the 24th of June.

JOHN, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. The day appointed for the commemoration of “the beloved disciple.” St. John the evangelist (so called from the Greek term which signifies the messenger of glad tidings) was a Galilean by birth, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the younger brother of James, but not of him who was surnamed the Just, and who was the brother of our LORD. His brother James and he were surnamed by JESUS the Sons of Thunder, for their peculiar zeal and fervency for his honour, which we see manifested in St. John’s sedulous assertions of our LORD’S Divinity. He was the most beloved by our SAVIOUR of all the disciples.

St. John exercised his ministry in Asia Minor, and having excited enemies through preaching the doctrines of CHRIST, was carried prisoner from Ephesus to Rome, in the year 92. Subsequently to this he was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation. He was afterwards recalled from his exile by Nero the emperor, and then returned to Ephesus. His three Epistles were written with reference to some prevailing heresies of the times; and the scope of his Gospel, which was his last work, shows that the apostle had in view the same deniers of the Divinity of the SAVIOUR. He survived till the reign of Trajan, and died at the age of nearly 100 years.

St. John the Evangelist’s day is on the 27th of December.

JOHN’S, ST., GENERAL EPISTLES. Three canonical books of the New Testament, being letters written by St. John the evangelist. (See the last article.)

The First Epistle of St. John has always been received by the Church as genuine. Though there is neither inscription nor direction, it appears, by the beginning of chap. ii., to be a Catholic or General Epistle, addressed not to one, but many Christians. It is probable he wrote it towards the end of his life, because he mentions the opinion which then prevailed, that the day of judgment was at hand, and Antichrist ready to appear. He insists upon the advantages of faith in Christ; he exhorts those to whom he writes not to suffer themselves to be seduced by false teachers; and recommends to them good works, the love of GOD and our neighbour, purity, and other Christian virtues. This Epistle, for matter and style, is much like the Gospel written by the same apostle.

The two other Epistles which carry his name, have not always been so generally received. On the contrary, some of the ancients were of opinion that they were written by another John, called the Elder, a disciple of the apostle’s, mentioned by Papias. However, Irenæus quotes the second under the name of John, the disciple of our Lord. In truth, the spirit, the sentiments, and style of these two Epistles are not only like, but often the same as the First Epistle; which plainly bespeaks one and the same author.

The Second Epistle of St. John is directed to the elect Lady; by which some understand a lady named Electa; others, only some lady of dignity and distinction; and others, an elect or chosen Church, metaphorically styled Lady. Whoever she be, the apostle congratulates her, because her children led a Christian life. He cautions her likewise to beware of impostors, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh.

The Third Epistle of St. John is directed to Gaius, or Caius. Whoever he be, (for it is controverted,) the apostle declares to him the joy he conceived, when he heard of his piety and charity.

It is probable St. John wrote his Epistles, as well as his Gospel, from Ephesus, after his return from the isle of Patmos.

JOHN’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament, being a recital of the life, actions, doctrine, death, &c., of our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, written by St. John the apostle and evangelist. (See the preceding article.)

St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, after his return from the isle of Patmos, at the desire of the Christians and bishops of Asia. St. Jerome says, he would not undertake it, but on condition they should appoint a public fast, to implore the assistance of GOD; and that, the fast being ended, St. John, filled with the HOLY GHOST, broke out into these words; “In the beginning was the Word,” &c. The ancients assign two reasons for this undertaking. The first is, because, in the other three Gospels, there was wanting the history of the beginning of JESUS CHRIST’S preaching till the imprisonment of John the Baptist; which therefore he applied himself particularly to relate. The second reason was, in order to confound the errors of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and other heretics, who denied the Divinity of JESUS CHRIST.

Some critics have thought, that St. John’s Gospel ended at the 20th chapter with these words, “Many other signs truly did Jesus,” &c., and that the following chapter was added, after the death of St. John, by the Church of Ephesus.

Clement of Alexandria calls this Gospel, “the spiritual Gospel;” and St. Jerome says of this evangelist, that he wrote of our SAVIOUR’S Divinity in a very sublime manner, and with a happy temerity. Pagan philosophers have admired the sublimity of St. John’s Gospel. Thus, the Platonist Amelius, having read the beginning of it, and finding it conformable to the doctrine of Plato, cried out, “O Jupiter! this barbarian believes with Plato, that the Word is the beginning.”

Julian the Apostate accuses St. John of introducing novelties into the Christian religion, by making JESUS CHRIST pass for a GOD, which neither St. Paul, nor the other evangelists, had dared to do.

It is observable, that the history of the woman taken in adultery, related in the 8th chapter, is not to be found in all the manuscripts of this Gospel. Grotius, and others, believed, that the story was taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and inserted afterwards in that of St. John. Others pretend, that the Novatians had razed it out. But St. Augustine thinks, some good orthodox people had expunged it, lest their wives should make use of it, to prevent that chastisement which their disloyalty might deserve.—Broughton.

JONAH. The most ancient of the prophetic books of the Old Testament, which contains also a part of the history of the prophet whose name it bears. Jonah is supposed to have prophesied to the ten tribes towards the close of Jehu’s reign, or in the beginning of Jehoahaz’s reign; but the great subject of the book which bears his name, is the prophecy which he was commissioned to utter against Nineveh, with his refusal to go, his punishment, his second mission, and the repentance of the Ninevites. The continuing of Jonah three days in the belly of the great fish, is declared by our blessed LORD himself to have been a predictive sign of his own burial, and of his resurrection on the third day. This gives great additional importance to the book of Jonah.—Broughton.

JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. The learned are divided in their opinions about the author of the Book of Joshua; the title at the head of the book being supposed, not to denote its author, but the subject matter of it, being the history of the wars and transactions which happened under the administration of Joshua. Some think the 26th verse of the last chapter are an evidence, that Joshua was the author of this book: the words are; “Joshua wrote all these words in the book of the law of the LORD.” But this may only relate to what is said in this chapter concerning the covenant that the people made with GOD. For Joshua, a little before his death, having assembled the Israelites at Sichem, and laid them under a solemn engagement to serve only the LORD, gave them fresh laws and ordinances, and “wrote all these words in the book of the law of the LORD.” Some allege what is said concerning Joshua in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, (ch. xlvi.,) that “he was the successor of Moses in prophecies,” as a proof that he wrote a sacred book. But this may mean no more, than that he succeeded Moses in the spirit of prophecy. The ancient Talmudists, and many of later date, expressly ascribe this book to Joshua, and the Jews reckon him among the first prophets, as they call them, though the book is merely historical.

Some of the ancients, and many of the moderns, deny, that Joshua was the author of this book. Theodoret affirms, that it was compiled a long time after the death of Joshua, and that it was but an abstract of an ancient commentary, called “The Book of Jasher,” or “just men,” spoken of in the tenth chapter of this book. Others have endeavoured to show, from particular passages of the book, that it could not be Joshua’s; as when it is said, (ch. iv. ver. 9,) that “the twelve stones, that Joshua set up in the midst of Jordan, remain to this day:” and, in another place, “This place is called Gilgal to this day.” But these, and the like passages, might have been afterwards added to the collections of Joshua.

However it be, the Hebrews, as well as the Greeks and Latins, have distinguished this book by the title of Joshua, or Jesus. This great personage was the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim. He was first called Oshea; but Moses changed his name to Jehoshua, or Joshua. These names, which have all the same root, signify a Saviour: and Joshua was appointed by GOD to be the successor of Moses, and to lead the Israelites in safety, by subduing their enemies, into the promised land; the history of which great event is the subject of the Book of Joshua; which may be divided into three parts. The first is a history of the conquest of the land of Canaan. The second, which begins at the twelfth chapter, is a description of that country, and the division of it among the tribes. The third, comprised in the two last chapters, contains the renewal of the covenant he caused the Israelites to make, and the death of their victorious leader and governor. The whole comprehends a term of seventeen, or, according to others, twenty-seven years.

JUBILATE DEO. (“O be joyful in God.”) One of the psalms appointed to be used after the second lesson in the morning service. It is the same with the 100th Psalm in the Psalter. It was first inserted in the Prayer Book in the Second Book of King Edward VI.

JUBILEE. A solemn season recurring at stated intervals in the Church of Rome, chiefly marked by the indulgences then granted by the pope to all of his communion. Boniface VIII. was the first that instituted it, in 1300, in imitation of that of the Jews, ordering it to be observed every hundredth year. Clement VI. reduced it to fifty, Urban IV. to thirty, and Sixtus IV. to twenty-five, where it hath continued ever since. Besides this, the popes, upon their exaltation to the see of Rome, have frequently celebrated a jubilee, as likewise upon other extraordinary occasions. The ceremony observed at Rome, for the jubilee, at every twenty-five years’ end, which they call the holy year, is this: The pope goes to St. Peter’s church to open the holy gate, (as they call it,) which is walled up, and only opened upon this occasion; and knocking three times at the said gate, with a golden hammer, says these words, Aperite mihi portas justitiæ, &c., “Open to me the gates of righteousness; I will go into them and I will praise the LORD” (Psalm cxviii. 19); whereupon the masons fall to work to break down the wall that stopped the gate; which done, the pope kneels down before it, whilst the penitentiaries of St. Peter wash him with holy water, and then taking up the cross, he begins to sing Te Deum, and enters the church, followed by the clergy. In the mean while, three cardinal legates are sent to open the other three holy gates, with the same ceremonies, which are in the churches of St. John of Lateran, of St. Paul, and St. Mary Major; and the next morning the pope gives his benediction to the people in the jubilee form. When the holy year is expired, they shut up the holy gates again on Christmas eve in this manner. The pope, after he has blessed the stones and mortar, lays the first stone, and leaves there twelve boxes full of gold and silver medals.

The Jewish jubilee was celebrated every fifty years. The word is derived from jovel, which in Hebrew signifies the blast of a trumpet, (Josh. vi. 4, 13); because the year of jubilee was proclaimed with trumpets. This year was a year of general rest and universal liberty, wherein all servants were restored to their freedom, and all sold possessions returned to their first owners. The Jews observed these jubilees very exactly till the Babylonian captivity, but after their return did no longer observe it; for their doctors assure us that there were no jubilees under the second temple. See Lev. xxv. 9, et seq.

JUDGES, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book, of the authenticity of which there is no doubt in the Church, though the author is unknown; some ascribing it to Phinehas, others to Ezra or Hezekiah, though most to Samuel.

JUNE THE TWENTIETH. (See Forms of Prayer.)

“JURE DIVINO.” By Divine right; an expression frequently occurring in controversial writings, especially in relation to the ministry of the Church.

It is evident, and generally confessed, that the right to minister in holy things is not in every man’s power. If it were so, the very idea of the ministry, as a distinct class of men, empowered to act “in CHRIST’S stead,” would be broken up, and the Church would lose its character as a society; for that implies the existence of officers and of subordination. It is also confessed that in the Christian Church men are not born to the ministry, as they were under the Jewish dispensation. Whence, then, comes that authority with which the ambassador of CHRIST is invested? Is it human? Can any body of men confer the power to rule and minister in a society, the full control of which is in the hands of the eternal GOD? Most evidently not. Human power, or a commission derived from human resources, is as void and inadequate in qualifying for the functions of the ministry, as it would be in the attempt to create a world, or to found a new rank in the hierarchy of heaven. We are driven then, at once, to the Divine institution as the foundation of all legitimate power in the Church.

The Head of the Church established a ministry, with the right and ability to execute all its appointed functions. It was not intellectual eminence, or high station, or influence, wealth, courage, or any other human attribute, which brought into being “the glorious company of the apostles;” but it was the sovereign power alone of him “in whom dwelt all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” And was this power to be recalled on the demise of those who were every day doomed to stripes, imprisonments, perils, and death in a thousand shapes? No; for either the Church for the future must fail, the sacraments be obliterated, the “watching for souls” be abolished, or the continuation of the sacred ministry must be demanded with all its original spiritual functions. To the apostles, therefore, was given, (jure divino,) and to them alone, the ability to perpetuate or transmit the gift which the REDEEMER had bestowed. From them the prerogatives of episcopacy (or apostolate) were communicated to younger men, including the transmissive or ordaining faculty. Under these, the elders and deacons were put in trust with a share of the original grant of ministerial power,—a power they were themselves incapable of delegating; and by an unbroken succession, in the line of bishops, the Divine commission has reached these latter days of the Church.

If then, as we have shown, Divine right is the only foundation on which the ministry can stand, there is no alternative left to any one claiming office in the Church of GOD, but to vindicate the legality of his mission by miracle, or some other tangible Divine verification, which no man can dispute; or else to bring forth such credentials as Timothy, Titus, and the ministers ordained by them had to show, viz. the simple evidence of the fact that the apostles, or their successors, had imparted to them the authority they claim to possess. This every bishop, priest, and deacon, in the Catholic Church, is prepared to do.

JURISDICTION. The power and authority vested in a bishop, by virtue of the apostolical commission, of governing and administering the laws of the Church within the bounds of his diocese. The same term is used to express the bounds within which a bishop exercises his power, i. e. his diocese.

In the Saxon times, before the Norman Conquest, there was no distinction of jurisdiction; but all matters, as well spiritual as temporal, were determined in the county court, called the Sheriff’s Tourn, where the bishop and earl (or in his absence the sheriff) sat together; or else in the hundred court, which was held in like manner before the lord of the hundred and ecclesiastical judge.

For the ecclesiastical officers took their limits of jurisdiction from a like extent of the civil powers. Most of the old Saxon bishoprics were of equal bounds with the distinct kingdoms. The archdeaconries, when first settled into local districts, were commonly fitted to the respective counties. And rural deaneries, before the Conquest, were correspondent to the political tithings. Their spiritual courts were held, with a like reference to the administration of civil justice. The synods of each province and diocese were held at the discretion of the metropolitan and the bishop, as great councils at the pleasure of the prince. The visitations were first united to the civil inquisitions in each county; and afterwards, when the courts of the earl and bishop were separated, yet still the visitations were held like the sheriff’s tourns, twice a year, and like them too after Easter and Michaelmas, and still, with nearer likeness, the greater of them was at Easter. The rural chapters were also held, like the inferior courts of the hundred, every three weeks; then, and like them too, they were changed into monthly, and at last into quarterly meetings. Nay, and a prime visitation was held commonly, like the prime folemote or sheriff’s tourn, on the very calends of May.

And accordingly Sir Henry Spelman observes, that the bishop and the earl sat together in one court, and heard jointly the causes of Church and commonwealth; as they yet do in parliament. And as the bishop had twice in the year two general synods, wherein all the clergy of his diocese of all sorts were bound to resort for matters concerning the Church; so also there was twice in the year a general assembly of all the shire for matters concerning the commonwealth, wherein, without exception, all kinds of estates were required to be present, dukes, earls, barons, and so downward of the laity; and especially the bishop of that diocese among the clergy. For in those days the temporal lords did often sit in synods with the bishops, and the bishops in like manner in the courts of the temporality, and were therein not only necessary, but the principal judges themselves. Thus by the laws of King Canute, “the shyre-gemot (for so the Saxons called this assembly of the whole shire) shall be kept twice a year, and oftener if need require, wherein the bishop and the alderman of the shire shall be present, the one to teach the laws of GOD, the other the laws of the land.” And among the laws of King Henry I., it is ordained, “first, let the laws of true Christianity (which we call the ecclesiastical) be fully executed with due satisfaction; then let the pleas concerning the king be dealt with; and, lastly, those between party and party: and whomsoever the Church synod shall find at variance, let them either make accord between them in love, or sequester them by their sentence of excommunication.” And the bishop first gave a solemn charge to the people touching ecclesiastical matters, opening unto them the rights and reverence of the Church, and their duty therein towards GOD and the king, according to the word of GOD: then the alderman in like manner related unto them the laws of the land, and their duty towards GOD, the king, and commonwealth, according to the rule and tenure thereof.

The separation of the ecclesiastical from the temporal courts was made by William the Conqueror: for upon the conquest made by the Normans, the pope took the opportunity to usurp upon the liberties of the crown of England; for the Conqueror came in with the pope’s banner, and under it won the battle. Whereupon the pope sent two legates into England, with whom the Conqueror called a synod, deposed Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, because he had not purchased his pall from Rome, and displaced many bishops and abbots to make room for his Normans. This admission of the pope’s legates first led the way to his usurped jurisdiction in England; yet no decrees passed or were put in execution, touching matters ecclesiastical, without the royal assent; nor would the king submit himself in point of fealty to the pope, as appears by his epistle to Gregory VII. Yet in his next successor’s time, namely, in the time of King William Rufus, the pope, by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, attempted to draw appeals to Rome, but did not prevail. Upon this occasion it was, that the king said to Anselm, that none of his bishops ought to be subject to the pope, but the pope himself ought to be subject to the emperor; and that the king of England had the same absolute liberty in his dominions, as the emperor had in the empire. Yet in the time of the next king, King Henry I., the pope usurped the patronage and donation of bishoprics, and of all other benefices ecclesiastical. At this time, Anselm told the king, that the patronage and investiture of bishops was not his right, because Pope Urban had lately made a decree, that no lay person should give any ecclesiastical benefice. And after this, at a synod held at London, in the year 1107, a decree was made to which the king assented, that from thenceforth no person should be invested in a bishopric by the giving of a ring and pastoral staff (as had been before); nor by any lay hand. Upon which the pope granted that the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being should be for ever legatus natus: and Anselm for the honour of his see obtained, that the archbishop of Canterbury should in all general councils sit at the pope’s foot, as alterius orbis papa, or pope of this part of the world. Yet after Anselm’s death, this same king gave the archbishopric of Canterbury to Rodolph, bishop of London, and invested him with the ring and pastoral staff; and this because the succeeding popes had broken Pope Urban’s promise, touching the not sending of legates into England unless the king should require it. And in the time of the next king, King Stephen, the pope gained appeals to the court of Rome; for in a synod at London, convened by Henry, bishop of Winchester, the pope’s legate, it was decreed, that appeals should be made from provincial councils to the pope: before which time appeals to Rome were not in use. Thus did the pope usurp three main points of jurisdiction, upon three several kings after the Conquest, (for of King William Rufus he could gain nothing,) viz. upon the Conqueror, the sending of the legates or commissioners to hear and determine ecclesiastical causes; upon Henry I., the donation and investiture of bishoprics and other benefices; and upon King Stephen, the appeals to the court of Rome. And in the time of King Henry II., the pope claimed exemption for clerks from the secular power. And finally, in the time of King John, he took the crown from off the king’s head, and compelled him to accept his kingdom from the pope’s donation. Nevertheless all this was not obtained without violent struggle and opposition: and this caused the statutes of provisors to be made, in the reigns of King Edward III. and King Richard II. The limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction were finally settled by the statute of 24 Henry VIII. c. 12. Jurisdiction is also applied to the power vested in certain dignitaries, as dean, chancellor, &c., in some cathedrals; and in many, when each individual prebendary had a peculiar jurisdiction.

JUSTIFICATION. (See Faith and Sanctification.) Justification, in the language of Scripture, signifies our being accounted just or righteous in the sight of GOD.—Tomline.

A clear understanding of the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome upon this subject is most important, since the difference between the two Churches on this point causes an essential and vital difference through the whole system of their theology. The definition of the Church of England is set forth in her Articles and Homilies: and it is there propounded in a manner so perspicuous, as to preclude, it might well be thought, all possibility of misapprehension.

As contained in the eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth Articles, the definition runs in terms following:

“We are accounted righteous before GOD, only for the merit of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, by faith; and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort: as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.

“Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of GOD’S judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to GOD in CHRIST, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that, by them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned by the fruit.

“Works done before the grace of CHRIST and the inspiration of his SPIRIT, are not pleasant to GOD, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in JESUS CHRIST; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as GOD hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”

The homily referred to in the eleventh Article, under the title of The Homily of Justification, is styled, in the first Book of Homilies itself, “A sermon of the salvation of mankind, by only CHRIST our SAVIOUR, from sin and death everlasting:” and this homily is described as more largely expressing the doctrine of justification than the necessary brevity of an article admitted. Therefore, obviously, the statement contained in it challenges our especial attention.

“Because all men be sinners and offenders against GOD, and breakers of his law and commandments; therefore can no man, by his own acts, words, and deeds, (seem they never so good,) be justified and made righteous before GOD: but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness of justification, to be received at GOD’S own hands; that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive of GOD’S mercy and CHRIST’S merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed, of GOD, for our perfect and full justification.

“The apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in our justification: upon GOD’S part, his great mercy and grace; upon CHRIST’S part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of GOD’S justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and, upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of JESUS CHRIST, which yet is not ours but by GOD’S working in us. So that, in our justification, there is not only GOD’S mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the apostle calleth the justice of GOD: and it consisteth, in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law. And so the grace of GOD doth not shut out the justice of GOD in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith: which, nevertheless, is the gift of GOD, and not man’s only work without GOD. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of GOD, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether. Neither doth faith shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty toward GOD; for we are most bounden to serve GOD, in doing good deeds, commanded by him in his Holy Scripture, all the days of our life: but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them. For all the good works that we can do, be imperfect; and, therefore, not able to deserve our justification. But our justification doth come freely, by the mere mercy of GOD, and of so great and free mercy, that, whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part toward their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of CHRIST’S body and blood; whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. So that CHRIST is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him. He, for them, paid their ransom by his death. He, for them, fulfilled the law in his life. So that now, in him and by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the law; forasmuch as that, which their infirmity lacked, CHRIST’S justice hath supplied.

“That we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, we do read ofttimes in the best and most ancient writers: as, beside Hilary, Basil, and St. Ambrose, we read the same in Origen, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, Prosper, Œcumenius, Photius, Bernardus, Anselm, and many other writers, Greek and Latin. Nevertheless, this sentence, that ‘we be justified by faith only,’ is not so meant of them that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of GOD, at any time and season. Nor, when they say, that we should be justified freely, do they mean that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward. Neither do they mean so to be justified without good works, that we should do no good works at all. But this saying, that ‘we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works,’ is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at GOD’S hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man and the goodness of GOD, the great infirmity of ourselves and the might and power of GOD, the imperfection of our own works and the most abundant grace of our SAVIOUR CHRIST; and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto CHRIST only, and his most precious blood-shedding. This faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us: this is the strong rock and foundation of the Christian religion: this doctrine all old ancient authors of CHRIST’S Church do approve: this doctrine advanceth and setteth forth the true glory of CHRIST, and beateth down the vain glory of man: this whosoever denieth, is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a setter-forth of CHRIST’S glory, but for an adversary to CHRIST and his gospel, and for a setter-forth of men’s vain glory.”

The doctrine of the Church of Rome must be taken from the Council of Trent. The exposition of the Tridentine fathers, assembled in their sixth session, runs through sixteen chapters; and so extreme is its verboseness, and so perplexing is its incessant alternation, that we might be somewhat puzzled to form a distinct idea of their views in respect to justification, if the last of those chapters had not given us, in the shape of an article or summary, the result of their prolix theologising.

Omitting, then, the discussion upon which their definition is built, we will proceed immediately to the definition itself.

“Since JESUS CHRIST, as the head into the members and as the vine into the branches, perpetually causes his virtue to flow into the justified; which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they would in nowise be grateful to GOD and meritorious; we must believe, that nothing more is wanting to the justified themselves, which need prevent us from thinking, both that they can satisfy the Divine law according to the state of this life, by those works which are performed in GOD; and that, in their own time, provided they depart in grace, they may truly merit the attainment of eternal life.

“Thus, neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to be our own, as if it were from ourselves; nor is the righteousness of GOD either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our righteousness, because, through it being inherent in us, we are justified; that same is the righteousness of GOD, because it is infused into us by GOD through the merit of CHRIST.

“Far, however, be it from a Christian man, that he should either trust or glory in himself and not in the LORD; whose goodness to all men is so great, that, what are truly his gifts, he willeth to be estimated as their merits.”

This article or summary removes all possibility of misapprehension. Through it, the Church of Rome determines that we are justified, not by any imputation to us of righteousness, or by any imputation to us of faith in the place of righteousness, (though each of these imputations is insisted upon by St. Paul,) but by our own inherent righteousness.

On this, the Romish system, the judicious Hooker remarks: “When they are required to show, what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man is justified, they answer, that it is a Divine spiritual quality: which quality, received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them who are born of GOD; and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such works as they do that are born of him: even as the soul of man, being joined to his body, doth first make him to be of the number of reasonable creatures; and, secondly, enable him to perform the natural functions which are proper to his kind: that it maketh the soul amiable and gracious in the sight of GOD, in regard whereof it is termed Grace; that it purgeth, purifieth, and washeth out, all the stains and pollutions of sins; that, by it, through the merit of CHRIST, we are delivered, as from sin, so from eternal death and condemnation, the reward of sin. This grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to the end that, as the body is warm by the heat which is in the body, so the soul might be made righteous by inherent grace: which grace they make capable of increase; as the body may be more and more warm, so the soul more and more justified according as grace should be augmented; the augmentation whereof is merited by good works, as good works are made meritorious by it. Wherefore, the first receipt of grace, in their divinity, is the first justification: the increase thereof, the second justification. As grace may be increased by the merit of good works, so it may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial; it may be lost by mortal sin. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful, in the one case to repair, in the other to recover, the loss which is made, the infusion of grace hath her sundry after-meals; for the which cause they make many ways to apply the infusion of grace. It is applied to infants through baptism, without either faith or works; and, in them, really it taketh away original sin, and the punishment due unto it: it is applied to infidels and wicked men in the first justification, through baptism, without works, yet not without faith: and it taketh away sins both actual and original together, with all whatsoever punishment, eternal or temporal, thereby deserved. Unto such as have attained the first justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied further by good works to the increase of former grace: which is the second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more increase: and they are more and more justified. To such as diminish it by venial sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Marias, crossings, papal salutations, and such like: which serve for reparations of grace decayed. To such as have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by the sacrament (as they term it) of penance: which sacrament hath force to confer grace anew; yet in such sort, that, being so conferred, it hath not altogether so much power as at the first. For it only cleanseth out the stain or guilt of sin committed; and changeth the punishment eternal into a temporal satisfactory punishment—here, if time do serve, if not, hereafter, to be endured; except it be lightened by masses, works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else shortened by pardon for term, or by plenary pardon quite removed and taken away. This is the mystery of the man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth cause her followers to tread, when they ask her the way to justification. Whether they speak of the first or second justification, they make ‘the essence of a Divine quality inherent,’ they make it ‘righteousness which is in us.’ If it be in us, then it is ours: as our souls are ours, though we have them from GOD, and can hold them no longer than pleaseth him; for, if he withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust. But the righteousness, wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is ‘not our own.’ Therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. The Church of Rome, in teaching justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of CHRIST: and, by the hands of the apostles, we have received otherwise than she teacheth. Now, concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent: we grant, that, unless we work, we have it not: only we distinguish it, as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification. By the one, we are interested in the right of inheriting: by the other, we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss. And so the end of both is ‘everlasting life.’”

The difference between the two systems may be pointed out in a few words. The Romish Church teaches that a man is justified by an inherent righteousness, which, though originally a gift of GOD, as are his soul and his bodily members, is nevertheless, like his soul, his own.

The Anglican Church, on the contrary, in common with all the other Churches of the Reformation, teaches: “that man is justified by an extrinsic righteousness, which is not his own, but the righteousness of CHRIST; the faith which instrumentally lays hold of it and appropriates it, and which itself is the gift of GOD, being forensically imputed to him of GOD, instead of a righteousness which he himself possesses not; so that he is justified through faith, though not on account of faith; the sole particular, on account of which he is justified, being the merit and perfect righteousness of our LORD and only SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.”

Whichever scheme of doctrine may be preferred as most agreeable to Scripture and to antiquity, it is clear, that the two statements here given are at least incapable of misapprehension. Right or wrong, the two schemes stand flatly and diametrically opposed to each other. The Roman Church asserts: the Anglican Church denies. Conversely, the Roman Church denies: the Anglican Church asserts. The Roman Church asserts the doctrine of justification by an infused and personal inherent righteousness: the Anglican Church strenuously denies that doctrine; admitting, indeed, that the inherent righteousness of sanctification is always consequentially present with the really justified; but refusing to it any, even the least, share in “the procurement of justification.” The Roman Church denies, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone, nothing else being required to obtain the grace of justification: the Anglican Church asserts, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone without works, nothing save faith being required to obtain the grace of justification, inasmuch as the office of works is not the procurement of our justification, and inasmuch as it is a contradictory hysteron-proteron to say that works which “follow after” justification, and are its “effect,” can yet “procure” it and be its “cause.”

It has been customary to speak of the doctrine of forensic justification as if it were a Calvinistic doctrine. That Calvin held it is not to be denied, but all history bears witness that it is not a peculiarity of the Calvinistic system.

Calvin was born in 1509, and he was yet a schoolboy, or a pluralist in the Romish Church, (as he became in his twelfth year,) when Luther was using this doctrine, as the doctrine by which to lay low the whole fabric of Romish superstition.

Again, it was the doctrine of our English reformers, as most clearly stated in our Articles and Homilies; and Archbishop Laurence has triumphantly established the historical fact, that our reformers were not Calvinists.

If we wish for a clear statement of the doctrine of forensic justification, we may indeed refer to Bishop Andrewes; and the theology of Andrewes had certainly no affinity to that of Calvin. Let the reader peruse with attention the following passage from his sermon on justification.

“In the Scripture, then, there is a double righteousness set down, both in the Old and in the New Testament.

“In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in the Bible: ‘Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.’ A righteousness accounted. And again, in the very next line, it is mentioned, ‘Abraham will teach his house to do righteousness.’ A righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former, in one chapter, even the fourth to the Romans, no fewer than eleven times, Reputatum est illi ad justitiam. A reputed righteousness. The latter in St. John: ‘My beloved, let no man deceive you, he that doeth righteousness is righteous.’ A righteousness done. Which is nothing else but our just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these, the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the other is proper to Christians only, and altogether unknown in philosophy. The one is a quality of the party; the other, an act of the judge declaring or pronouncing righteous. The one ours by influence or infusion, the other by account or imputation. That both these there are, there is no question. The question is, whether of these the prophet here principally meaneth in this Name? This shall we best inform ourselves of by looking back to the verse before, and without so looking back we shall never do it to purpose. There the prophet setteth one before us, in his royal judicial power, in the person of a king, and of a king set down to execute judgment; and this he telleth us, before he thinks meet to tell us his name. Before this king, thus set down in his throne, there to do judgment, the righteousness that will stand against the law, our conscience, Satan, sin, the gates of hell, and the power of darkness; and so stand that we may be delivered by it from death, despair, and damnation; and entitled by it to life, salvation, and happiness eternal; that is righteousness indeed, that is it we seek for, if we may find it. And that is not this latter, but the former only; and therefore that is the true interpretation of Jehovah justitia nostra. Look but how St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers, when they have occasion to mention that place in the Proverbs, Cum Rex justus sederit in solio, quis potest dicere, Mundum est cor meum?—look how they interpret it then, and it will give us light to understand this name; and we shall see, that no name will serve then, but this name. Nor this name neither, but with this interpretation of it. And that the HOLY GHOST would have it ever thus understood, and us ever to represent before our eyes this King thus sitting in his judgment-seat, when we speak of this righteousness, it is plain two ways. 1. By way of position. For the tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all along runneth in judicial terms, to admonish us still what to set before us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the Scriptures, show it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The terms of, 1. A judge: ‘It is the LORD that judgeth me.’ 2. A prison: Kept and shut up under Moses. 3. A bar: ‘We must all appear before the bar.’ 4. A proclamation: ‘Who will lay anything to the prisoner’s charge?’ 5. An accuser: ‘The accuser of our brethren.’ 6. A witness: ‘Our conscience bearing witness.’ 7. An indictment upon these: ‘Cursed be he that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them;’ and again, ‘He that breaketh one is guilty of all.’ A conviction that all may be ὑπόδικοι, ‘guilty’ or culpable ‘before GOD.’ Yea, the very delivering of our sins under the name of ‘debts;’ of the law under the name of a ‘handwriting;’ the very terms of ‘an advocate,’ of ‘a surety made under the law;’ of a pardon, or ‘being justified from those things which by the law we could not:’—all these, wherein for the most part this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of this name cannot be rightly understood, nor what manner of righteousness is in question, except we still have before our eyes this same coram rege justo judicium faciente.”—Bishop Andrewes’ Sermon on Justification in Christ’s Name. See also Barrow’s Sermon on Justification. Waterland on Justification. Heurtley on Justification. Stanley Faber on Justification.

KEYS, POWER OF THE. The authority existing in the Christian priesthood of administering the discipline of the Church, and communicating or withholding its privileges; so called from the declaration of CHRIST to St. Peter, (Matt. xvi. 19,) “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” The power here promised was afterwards conferred on St. Peter and the other apostles, when the SAVIOUR breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the HOLY GHOST. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23.)

The power of the keys is only a ministerial power. By administering the sacraments, they who have that power do that which conveys grace to certain souls. But whose souls are these? The souls of faithful and repentant men. They who are qualified will receive the outward ordinance which conveys to them the pardon they require: but, to those who are not qualified by repentance and faith, no blessing can be conveyed; the blessing of the minister will return to him again.

The power of the keys must likewise refer to the authority of spiritual rulers to “bind” their people by some ordinances, and to “loose” them from others, when they have been abused, always excepting the two sacraments of the gospel, baptism and the eucharist, which, instituted by our LORD himself, are always binding. When the bishops of a Church bind their people by an ordinance, their act is ratified in heaven: and they who seek grace through that ordinance, receive it. Whereas, if they loose us from an ordinance, as from many ordinances we were loosed at the Reformation, this act again is ratified in heaven, and to observe that ordinance becomes superstition, not religion.

Upon Peter’s confession, that JESUS was “the CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD,” 1. He promiseth to build his Church upon the rock of that truth, and the rock confessed in it; 2. He promiseth “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” to Peter only, of all the apostles; meaning thereby, that he should be the man that should first unlock the door of faith and of the gospel unto the Gentiles, which was accomplished in Acts x. And, 3. He giveth him power of “binding and loosing,” and this power the other disciples had in common with him. “Binding and loosing,” in the language and style most familiarly known to the Jewish nation, (and it can be little doubted that CHRIST speaketh according to the common and most familiar sense of the language,) did refer more properly to things than to persons; therefore he saith, (Matt. xvi. 19,) ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς, not ὃν; and in Matt. xviii. 18, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε, not ὃσους. The phrase, “to bind and to loose,” in their vulgar speech, meant, to prohibit and to permit; or, to teach what is prohibited or permitted, what lawful, what unlawful; as may appear by these instances—a few produced, whereas thousands may be alleged out of their writings. “Our wise men say that in Judah they did work on the Passover eve till noon, but in Galilee not at all; and as for the night, the school of Shammai bound it, that is, forbade to work on it, or taught that it was unlawful; but the school of Hillel loosed it till sunrising, or taught that it was lawful to work till sunrise.” They are speaking about washing in the baths of Tiberias on the sabbath, and they determine how far this was lawful in these words, “They bound washing to them, but they loosed sweating;” meaning, they taught that it was lawful to go into the bath to sweat, but not to bathe for pleasure. “They send not letters by the hand of a Gentile on the eve of the sabbath, nor on the fifth day of the week. Nay, on the fourth day of the week, the school of Shammai bound it, but the school of Hillel loosed it.” “Women may not look in a looking-glass on the sabbath; but if it were fastened upon a wall, Rabbi loosed the looking into it; but the wise man bound it.” “R. Jochanan went from Tsipporis to Tiberias; he saith, ‘Why brought ye me to this elder? for what I loose, he bindeth; and what I bind, he looseth.’” “The scribes have bound leaven;” that is, they have prohibited it. “They have, upon necessity, loosed salutation on the sabbath;” that is, they have permitted it, or taught that it was lawful.

Thousands of instances of this nature might be produced, by all which it is clear that the Jews’ use of the phrase was of their doctors’ or learned men’s teaching what was lawful and permitted, and what was unlawful and prohibited. Hence is that definition of such men’s office and work: “A wise man that judgeth judgment, and maketh unclean and maketh clean, bindeth and looseth, that is, teacheth what is clean and unclean, what is permitted or prohibited.” And Maimonides, giving the relation of their ordaining of elders, and to what several employments they were ordained, saith thus, “A wise man that is fit to teach all the law, the consistory had power to ordain him to judge, but not to teach bound and loose: or power to teach bound and loose, but not a judge in pecuniary matters; or power to both these, but not to judge in matters of mulct,” &c. So that the ordination of one to that function,—which was more properly ministerial, or to teach the people their duty, as, what was lawful, what not; what they were to do, and what not to do,—was to such a purpose, or to such a tenor as this, “Take thou the power to bind and loose, or to teach what is bound and loose.” By this vulgar and only sense of this phrase in the nation, the meaning of CHRIST using it thus to his disciples is easily understood, namely, that he first doth instate them in a ministerial capacity to teach what bound and loose, what to be done and what not; and this as ministers: and thus all ministers successively, to the end of the world. But, as they were apostles, of that singular and unparalleled order as the like were never in the Church again, he gives them power to “bind and loose” in a degree above all ministers that were to follow: namely, that whereas some part of Moses’s law was now to stand in practice, and some to be laid aside; some things under the law prohibited, were now to be permitted; and some things, then permitted, to be now prohibited, he promiseth the apostles such assistance of his SPIRIT, and giveth them such power, that what they allowed to stand in practice should stand, and what to fall, should fall; “what they bound in earth should be bound in heaven,” &c.—Lightfoot.

There is one thing still behind, which we must by no means omit, especially upon this occasion, and that is, the power of governing the Church which our LORD left with his apostles and their successors to the end of the world; but so that he, according to his promise, is always present with them at the execution of it. For this power is granted to them in the very charter to which this promise is annexed; for here our LORD gives them commission not only to baptize, but likewise to teach those who are his disciples, to observe whatsoever he had commanded. Whereby they are empowered both to declare what are those commands of CHRIST which men ought to observe, and also to use all means to prevail upon men to observe them; such as in correcting or punishing those who violate, rewarding and encouraging those who keep them. But our SAVIOUR’S kingdom being, as himself saith, not of this world, but purely spiritual, he hath authorized his substitutes in the government of it to use rewards and punishments of the same nature; even to admonish delinquents in his name to forsake their sins; and if they continue obstinate, and neglect such admonitions, to excommunicate, or cast them out of his Church; and, upon their repentance, to absolve and receive them in again. This power our SAVIOUR first promised to St. Peter, and in him to the rest of the apostles. But it was not actually conferred upon them till after his resurrection, when, having breathed on them, he said unto them, “Receive the HOLY GHOST: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” As if he should have said, “I, the SON of man, having power upon earth also to forgive sins, do now commit the same to you; so that whose sins soever are remitted or retained by you, are so by me also.” From whence it is plain, both that the apostles received power to remit and retain sins, and that CHRIST himself concurs with them in the exercise of that power; and how he doth it, even by his HOLY SPIRIT now breathed into them. To explain the full extent and latitude of this power would require more time than can be allowed upon this day, whereon it is to be exercised; and therefore I shall observe only two things concerning it, whereof the first is, that how great soever the power be which our LORD committed to his apostles and their successors for the government of his Church in all ages, it is but ministerial; they act only under him as his ministers and stewards, and must one day give an account to him of all their actions. Yea, whatsoever power they have of this nature, it is still his power in their hands; they derive it continually from him, who is always present with them. And, therefore, as they themselves need to have a care how they exert this power, or neglect the exerting of it, so others had need take care, too, that they neither resist nor despise it.—Beveridge.

Bishop Jeremy Taylor expresses, with great clearness, the primitive doctrine on this subject: “The same promise of binding and loosing (which certainly was all that the keys were given for) was made afterwards to all the apostles, (Matt. xviii.,) and the power of remitting and retaining, which in reason, and according to the style of the Church, is the same thing in other words, was actually given to all the apostles; and unless that was the performing the first and second promise, we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when, or whether yet or no, the promise be performed.” And again: “If the keys were only given and so promised to St. Peter, that the Church hath not the keys, then the Church can neither bind nor loose, remit nor retain, which God forbid: if any man should endeavour to answer this argument, I leave him and St. Austin to contest it.”

The apostles knew nothing of any different power conveyed to one of their number beyond what was common to him with the rest, as we may reasonably conclude, since there is no record of any authority exercised on the one side, or of obedience rendered on the other.

The proposed distinction is, indeed, utterly untenable, and the whole testimony of antiquity is against it; yet it is maintained by some of the chief Roman commentators. Maldonat, for instance, who is one of the best known and most popular, in his exposition of this place, declares the keys to have been given to Peter, that is, the power of binding and loosing, of opening and shutting, in subordination to CHRIST alone, while the rest of the apostles received only an inferior jurisdiction. For this interpretation he advances no proof at all, except the mention of the keys in the address to Peter, and the omission in what was spoken to the rest, which he pronounces an irrefragable argument; and on the foundation of this alleged separate gift to Peter he builds the right of jurisdiction for his successors, extending to the supreme decision of spiritual causes on earth, and the regulating the condition of souls in purgatory. Cornelius Van den Steen, or à Lapide, as he is usually called, seems to have followed the interpretation of Maldonat, and says, that by the keys is signified the power of order and jurisdiction granted to Peter over the whole Church; and that CHRIST explains his meaning in the words which follow. He falls into the fallacy of representing the term “rock” as conveying the notion of government; and then, as if this were an unquestionably accurate representation, he goes on to blend figures which have nothing in common, and assumes that in this way the supreme power of the pope is adequately proved. Like his predecessor, he vindicates the most unlimited exercise of it, whether in enforcing obedience, or in granting dispensations, in enacting ecclesiastical laws, pronouncing excommunications and other censures, delivering decisions on questions of faith, with other acts which fall under the head of binding, or those of an opposite character, which belong to the power of loosing. In order to dispose of the difficult fact that Christ is recorded to have given the same power of binding and loosing to others as well, he affirms that Peter was first singled out, to signify that the rest of the apostles were committed to his care as his subjects, and that he was empowered to control, limit, or take away their jurisdictions as he should see fit; though it is clear both that the apostles exercised, in point of fact, the highest Church discipline, and that there is not a word which implies their having done so by delegation. He very characteristically confirms his exposition by a synodical letter, which the great Roman annalist had given up as spurious some years before.

Both these writers were theologians of the highest repute, the one professor at Paris, the other at Louvain. They may be fairly taken to express the judgment of the party at present dominant in the Roman Church. Nothing can be more extravagant than their interpretations, or more feebly supported by proofs; yet they are indispensable to the position of the ultramontanes. This extreme doctrine, revived by the Jesuits, for it was invented a century earlier, has no pretence of confirmation from any of the primitive expositors of Scripture. They declare, with one voice, that the keys were given to the Church in the person of Peter. In the words of Ambrose, “what is said to Peter, is said to the apostles.” Cyprian and Origen, Jerome and Basil, are of one mind on this point. The statement of Augustine, repeated in a multitude of places, is as clear as possible that the Church received the power of the keys, and not an individual apostle. The Fathers were not writing with any view to the present controversy; and many of their expressions, taken separately, would give a very untrue representation of their meaning, by making them maintain opinions which, in their time, had not been even suggested. Thus Cyprian, in his treatise on the unity of the Church, applies the disputed texts to Peter; but then he speaks of him as the type of unity, the representative of a great principle; and to guard his meaning against perversion, he states, in the plainest terms, that the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, and had equal participation of honour and authority. So the Fathers continually speak of him as figuring the oneness of the Church universal. They exalt his chair, but they are careful to explain that they are speaking, not of an individual bishop possessing supreme authority, which was the farthest from their thoughts, but of that one undivided episcopacy, to use Cyprian’s well-known words, of which every bishop possesses a portion.

Dupin affirms that the Fathers are unanimous in assigning ecclesiastical power, either to the Church generally, or to the apostles, and, after them, to bishops; that there is not one to be found who holds it to have been given to Peter and his successors alone; and that they have guarded against any wrong inference which might be drawn from the promise given to Peter, by showing that he was regarded as the representative of the Church. He furnishes some authorities on this subject, not only from the early Fathers, but from popes, great bishops of the Roman Church, scholastic writers, and universities; and he adds, that the number of passages which might be adduced is infinite. The same great writer states strongly the importance of the question: for if, as he says, the power of the keys belongs to the pope alone, there can be no doubt that he has authority over the whole Church; since, upon this hypothesis, neither the Church nor its prelates can have any other power than such as they derive from him.

In the Council of Paris, held in the eighth century, under the emperors Louis and Lothaire, the bishops expressly claimed this power of binding and loosing, without any reference to the successor of St. Peter. The Council of Constance, in its fourth session, declared, in the strongest language, that the Church has its jurisdiction immediately from CHRIST; and this judgment was embodied in acts of the highest significancy and importance. The Council of Basle, in its first session, passed a decree in exactly the same spirit, and almost in the very same words. Æneas Sylvius, the historian of the council, and afterwards Pius II., expressly vindicates the text in question from the interpretation which favours the pontifical authority. So Cardinal de Cusa, writing at the same period, claims for the other apostles the very same power of binding and loosing which was conveyed to Peter by the words of CHRIST. And John Gerson refers to this very place, in maintaining the superiority of a council to a pope. Even in the Council of Trent, we find the Cardinal of Lorraine speaking to the same effect; and though he may be worthless as a theologian, he is valuable as a witness. He alleged various passages, from Augustine and others, in proof that bishops derive their jurisdiction immediately from GOD. And, indeed, the whole argument of the French and Spanish prelates in favour of the divine right of episcopacy was based on the very interpretation of our LORD’S words which the Jesuit school condemns.

The canonists bear the same testimony. Thus Van Espen, and there are few higher authorities, delivers it as the doctrine of the Fathers on this subject, that, while CHRIST spoke to Peter in the singular, he made conveyance of the powers in question to all the apostles. Duaren speaks to the same effect. He affirms that the power of binding and loosing was given to the Church, and not to an individual.

Some even of the Roman commentators give a similar interpretation. Thus Nicholas de Lyra says that, as the confession of Peter was the confession of the rest, so the power given to him was bestowed on all. D’Espence and many others give the same exposition.

The severe rebuke administered to Peter, following so closely upon his confession, puts another difficulty in the way of those who insist on his great personal prerogatives. Gregory de Valentia proposes, as a rule of interpretation, that some things are to be taken as addressed to Peter in his public, and some in his private, character. Thus he supposes him to have been called the Rock in the former, and Satan in the latter; but this distinction is arbitrary, and obviously invented to serve a purpose. We shall not be more disposed to adopt the opinion of Hilary, who would have us consider the one part of the sentence addressed to Peter, the other to the evil spirit. But while, with the great body of ancient doctors, we admit the sin, we may well believe that GOD in his wisdom overruled it for good, by making it a warning that we should not think even of this eminent apostle more highly than we ought to think.—S. Robins.

KINDRED. (See Consanguinity.)

KING’S EVIL. This disease is connected with the ecclesiastical history of England by the power to cure it, which was for many centuries attributed to the kings of England, and which was, from the time of Edward the Confessor, held to be exercised as a part of the religion attached to the person of the king. The cure, too, was always accompanied by a religious service.

The kings of France also claimed the gift of healing, (but upon no other occasions than at their coronation,) and the ceremony was used at the coronation of Charles X., at Rheims. George I. made no pretensions to this gift, and it has never been claimed by his successors.

Bishop Bull says, “that divers persons desperately labouring under the king’s evil, have been cured by the mere touch of the royal hands, assisted with the prayers of the priests of our Church attending, is unquestionable, unless the faith of all our ancient writers, and the consentient report of hundreds of most credible persons in our own age, attesting the same, is to be questioned.”—Sermon on St. Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh.

In January, 1683, a proclamation was issued by the privy-council, and was ordered to be published in every parish in the kingdom, enjoining that the time for presenting persons for the “public healings” should be from the feast of All-saints, till a week before Christmas; and after Christmas until the first day of March, and then to cease till Passion week.

The office for the ceremony was called “The Ceremonies,” or “Prayers for the Healing.” The Latin form was used in the time of Henry VII., and was reprinted by the king’s printer in 1686. The English forms were essentially the same, with some modifications. These occur in the Common Prayer Books of the reigns of Charles I., Charles II., James II., and Anne (and, as it appears from Mr. Stephens’s own statement, in that of George I., in 1715). They all vary; and a new one appears to have been drawn up for each sovereign, so late as 1719. (See Pegge’s Curialia Miscellanea, 161; taken from a folio Prayer Book, 1710. Also Kennet’s Register, 731, and Sparrow’s Articles, 165, which latter form seems to have been used in the reign of Charles I.) In Mr. Stephens’s editions of the Common Prayer Book, from which the foregoing article has been abridged, the Latin form is given, (i. 997,) and the English form in 1715 (1002).

The following is the form in Sparrow’s Collections, printed in 1684.

AT THE HEALING.

The Gospel written in the 16th chapter of St. Mark, beginning at the 14th verse.

JESUS appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and cast in their teeth their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen that he was risen again from the dead. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all creatures: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these tokens shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall drive away serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. [6]They shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So when the LORD had spoken unto them, he was received into heaven, and is on the right hand of GOD. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the LORD working with them, and confirming the word with miracles following.

The Gospel written in the 1st chapter of St. John, beginning at the 1st verse.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD. The same was in the beginning with GOD. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shined in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. There was sent from God a man whose name was JOHN. The same came as a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of the Light. [7]That Light was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came among his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to be made sons of GOD, even them that believed on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor yet of the will of man, but of GOD. And the same Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

THE PRAYERS.

Vers. Lord have mercy upon us.

Resp. Lord have mercy upon us.

Vers. Christ have mercy upon us.

Resp. Christ have mercy upon us.

Vers. Lord have mercy upon us.

Resp. Lord have mercy upon us.

Our Father which art in Heaven. Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

(These Answers are to be made by them that come to be healed.)

Vers. O LORD, save thy servants.

Resp. Which put their trust in thee.

Vers. Send help unto them from above.

Resp. And evermore mightily defend them.

Vers. Help us, O GOD our Saviour.

Resp. And for the glory of thy Name deliver us; be merciful unto us sinners for thy Name’s sake.

Vers. O LORD, hear our prayer.

Resp. And let our cry come unto thee.

O Almighty God, who art the giver of all health, and the aid of them that seek to Thee for succour, we call upon Thee for thy help and goodness mercifully to be showed unto these thy servants, that they being healed of their infirmity, may give thanks unto thee in thy holy Church, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD. Amen.

The grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the love of GOD, and the fellowship of the HOLY GHOST, be with us all evermore. Amen.

The same form appears at the end of L’Estrange’s Alliance of the Divine Offices, 1699. It seems that in some of Queen Anne’s Prayer Books, (not in 1715, as stated by Mr. Stephens,) the form was altered, by the omission of the second Gospel, and the addition of certain prayers.

There seems to be little doubt that, by the mere force of imagination, a cure was not unfrequently occasioned.

KINGS, BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called, because they contain the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, from the beginning of the reign of Solomon down to the Babylonish captivity, for the space of near 600 years; taking into the account the two preceding Books of Samuel. In the Greek Bibles, as well as in the Latin, the two Books of Samuel are called the First and Second Books of Kings; so that in these copies of the Bible there are four Books of Kings. Anciently these four were but two in the Hebrew Bibles, the first whereof was called Samuel, and the second Kings, or Kingdoms: but at present, in the Hebrew copies, the first of these books is styled the First and Second Book of Samuel; and the other, the First and Second of Kings, as in our English version of the Bible.

It is probable that the two Books of Kings were composed by Ezra, who extracted them out of the public records which were kept of what passed in that nation.

KIRK OF SCOTLAND. (See Presbyterians.) The Kirk of Scotland acknowledges as its founder the celebrated John Knox, a disciple of Calvin. From its foundation, it adopted the doctrine and ecclesiastical government of the Church of Geneva. In 1581, King James, with his whole family and the whole nation, subscribed a confession of faith, with a solemn league and covenant, obliging themselves to maintain and defend the Protestant religion and Presbyterian government. The title of this confession is, “A General Confession of the true Christian Faith and Religion, according to GOD’S Word, and Acts of our Parliament, subscribed by the King’s Majestic and his Household; with sundrie others. To the glory of GOD, and good example of all men. At Edinburgh, the 28th day of Januarie. The year of our LORD 1581. And in the 14th year of his Majestie’s reign.” (See Confessions of Faith.)

KISS OF PEACE. (See Pax.) This form of salutation, as a token of Christian affection, appears to have been an apostolic custom. (Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26; 1 Pet. v. 14.) It was one of the rites of the eucharistic service in the primitive Church. It was omitted on Good Friday in remembrance of the traitorous kiss of Judas Iscariot.—Augusti.

KNEELING. The posture which the Church prescribes in prayer, acts of confession, &c.

The practice of kneeling in confession, in prayer, and in adoration, is of great antiquity; a reference to it being apparently made in Isaac’s blessing on Jacob, (Gen. xxvii. 29,)—compared with his brother’s subsequent conduct, (xlii. 6,) and with the edict of Pharaoh, “Bow the knee” (xli. 43); and again in the second commandment. (Exod. xx. 5.) David says, “Let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the “LORD our Maker.”” (Ps. xcv. 6.) “We will go into his tabernacle, and fall low on our knees before his footstool.” (cxxxii. 7.) Solomon “kneeled on his knees” before the altar of the LORD, with his hands spread up to heaven. (1 Kings viii. 54.) Ezra fell upon his knees, and spread out his hands unto GOD, and made his confession. (Ezra ix. 5–15.) Daniel “kneeled upon his knees three times a day,” and prayed “as he did aforetime.” (Dan. vi. 10.) The holy martyr Stephen “kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice,” praying for his murderers. (Acts vii. 60.) So Peter “kneeled down, and prayed,” (Acts ix. 40,) and also St. Paul. (Acts xx. 36; xxi. 5.)

That the posture was a customary one may be inferred from the conduct of the man beseeching CHRIST to heal his son, (Matt. xvii. 14,) and of the rich young man, (Mark x. 17,) as also of the leper (Mark i. 40); but the example of our blessed LORD himself, who, though without sin, yet “kneeled down” when he prayed, (Luke xxii. 41,) cannot but recommend the practice to every devout worshipper. Some of the early Christians so frequently used this posture of humility, as visibly to wear away the floor on which they kneeled; and Eusebius says of St. James the Just, that he had, by the continual exercise of his devotions, contracted a hardness on his knees, like that on the knees of camels. The practice was altogether so common, that prayer itself was termed κλίσις γονάτων—“bending the knees.” It is to be noticed, however, that the primitive Christians, out of a peculiar regard for the LORD’S day, and the joyful season between Easter and Whitsuntide, did (with the exception of the penitents, who were denied this privilege) then perform their whole devotions standing, instead of kneeling: and this custom was confirmed by the Council of Nice, for the sake of uniformity. It was from this circumstance, probably, that the Ethiopic and Muscovitish Churches adopted the attitude of standing, generally, a custom which they continue to this day.

Bingham remarks (book xiii. 8. 4) that though these two postures of prayer were very indifferent in their own nature, yet it was always esteemed an instance of great negligence, or great perverseness, to interchange them unseasonably one for the other, that is, to pray kneeling on the LORD’S day, when the Church required standing; or standing on other days, when the rules and custom of the Church required men to kneel. And therefore, as the Canons of Nice and of the Council in Trullo reflect upon those who were superstitiously bent upon kneeling on the LORD’S day, so others with equal severity complain of the remissness and negligence of such as refused to kneel at other times, when the Church appointed it. It is a very indecent and irregular thing, says Cæsarius of Arles, that when the deacon cries out, “Let us bend the knee,” the people should then stand erect as pillars in the Church. These were but small observations in themselves, but of great consequence, we see, when done perversely, to the scandal and disorder of the Church, whose great rule in all such cases is that of the apostle, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

In the whole of the primitive religious service there is not any circumstance casual; every particular, every gesture, is instructive. In the presence of GOD man fell upon his face to the ground; and, by that act, humbly confessed his original: hence bowing to the ground is the formal word for worshipping, which it was high treason to practise toward any idol. And when, from that posture, man raised himself to praise and to bless GOD, he raised himself no further than the knee, still so far retaining the posture of humility; and from this posture the word to signify blessing is taken. As bowing to the ground is used to signify worshipping, kneeling is used to signify blessing.—Forbes’ Thoughts on Religion.

Posture of body is a thing which, how slight soever it may now be thought to be, yet is not without its moment, if either Scripture, or reason, or the practice of holy men, may be our judges. For if we ought to glorify God in our bodies, as well as in our spirits; if we are forbidden to bow down before a graven image, lest we should thereby be thought by GOD to impart his honour to it; in fine, if our SAVIOUR refused to fall down, and worship the devil, upon the account of GOD’S challenging that honour unto himself; then must it be thought to be our duty to make use of such a posture of body towards GOD, as may bespeak our inward reverence, and particularly in prayer, which is one of the most immediate acts of the glorification of him.—Towerson on the Creed.

St. Augustine says, “I know not how it comes to pass, but so it is, that though these motions of the body be not made without a foregoing motion of the mind, yet, again, by the outward and visible performance of them, that more inward and invisible one, which caused them, is increased; and so the affection of the heart, which was the cause of their being done, is itself improved by the doing of them.”—Aug. de Cura pro Mortuis.

In the morning and evening service, the minister or priest is directed to kneel (with the people) at the Confession, LORD’S Prayer, and two versicles which follow; the versicles after the Creed, (a lesser Litany,) and the LORD’S Prayer following, and at the Collects. No position is enjoined for the Litany; but universal custom prescribes kneeling. In the Communion Service, the priest is to kneel only at the general confession, at the prayer immediately following the Sanctus, and when receiving the holy communion. The directions for the people are not as explicit here as elsewhere; but they are directed to kneel in the part before the sermon, with the following exceptions,—at the reading of the Gospel (for the Epistle no posture is prescribed) and at the Creed. After the sermon they are directed to kneel only at the confession, and the reception of the communion.

KNELL. A bell tolled at funerals.

KORAH, SONGS OR PSALMS OF THE SONS OF. The “sons of Korah” formed one of the three choirs of the temple, all Levites. They are sometimes called Korhites, or Kohathites, being descended from Kohath, the second son of Levi; Kohath’s grandson being Korah. Heman was the director of this choir in the time of King David: but it seems not to have survived the captivity, as the sons of Asaph are alone named by Nehemiah. Twelve psalms are inscribed Psalms or Songs of the Sons of Korah; and are supposed to have been specially performed by that choir, or composed by some of its members. They are the forty-second to the forty-ninth, eighty-fourth, eighty-fifth, eighty-seventh, and eighty-eighth.—Jebb.

KYRIE ELEISON. The Greek of “LORD have mercy” upon us. This earnest and pathetic appeal of the penitent heart has, from the apostolic age, been freely incorporated into the liturgies of the Church. It is perpetually repeated in the Greek liturgies; and in our own it is of frequent occurrence: so frequent, indeed, that exceptions have sometimes been taken to our forms, as tinctured with an overabundant sorrow and self-abasement, for those who are called to be the sons of GOD. The fault, however, is fortunately on the right side; and, as Bishop Sparrow remarks, on the Kyrie between the commandments, if there be any that think this might have been spared, as being fitter for poor publicans than saints, let them turn to the parable of the publican and Pharisee going up to the temple to pray, (Luke xviii.,) and here they shall receive an answer. It generally precedes the LORD’S Prayer. In the Litany, each of the three clauses is repeated severally by both minister and people. In the First Book of King Edward VI., it was used at the beginning of the Communion Service, and the figure iii. was prefixed to each clause, to signify that each was to be preceded three times. The Kyrie Eleison is generally called “the Lesser Litany.”

KYRIE, “O LORD,” (in Church music,) the vocative of the Greek word signifying LORD, with which word all the musical masses in the Church of Rome commence, that is, the above-mentioned Kyrie Eleison. Hence it has come to be used substantively for the whole piece, as one may say, a beautiful Kyrie, a Kyrie well executed, &c. It is sometimes applied to the responses between the commandments in our Prayer Book.—Jebb.

LABARUM. The celebrated imperial standard used by Constantine the Great. Near the extremity of the shaft of a lance, sheathed in plates of gold, was affixed, in a horizontal position, a small rod, so as to form the exact figure of a cross. From this transverse little bar hung drooping a small purple veil of the finest texture, interwoven with golden threads, and starred with brilliant jewels. Above this rose the sacred monogram of JESUS CHRIST encircled with a golden crown. Under this banner were his victories gained. It was carried near the emperor, and defended specially by the flower of his army. The etymology of the word is utterly unknown.

LAITY, LAYMAN. The people (λαὸς) as distinguished from the clergy. This distinction was derived from the Jewish Church, and adopted into the Christian by the apostles themselves. Every one knows that the offices of the priests and Levites among the Jews were distinct from those of the people. And so it was among Christians from the first foundation of the Church. Wherever any number of converts were made, as soon as they were capable of being formed into a Church, a bishop or a presbyter, with a deacon, was ordained to minister to them, as Epiphanius delivers from the ancient histories of the Church.

Every true Christian Church is a body of men associated for religious purposes, and composed of two distinct classes,—the clergy and the laity: the clergy especially and divinely set apart for sacred offices; the laity exercising the duties and receiving the privileges of religion, in the midst of temporal occupations and secular affairs. But the clergy are thus set apart, not for their own benefit only, but for the benefit of the Church in general, of their lay brethren among the rest; and the laity also are bound to employ their temporal opportunities not for themselves exclusively, but for the Church in general, and for their clerical brethren among the rest. They who minister at the altar, minister for those who partake of the altar; and they who partake of the altar are bound to support those who minister at the altar; and this is one out of a thousand applications of the general principles of communion, and of the reciprocal rights and privileges on which it is founded.

Compacted by these reciprocal duties and privileges, but still more truly and effectually by ordinances and sacraments, and by a divine and mystical agency which animates all with one spirit, and sanctifies all with one grace, clergy and laity together form but one body. The clergy alone no more constitute the Church, either in a spiritual, in an ecclesiastical, or in a political sense, than do the laity alone; and the Church has no existence, no duties, no rights, no authority, except as it is composed of both clergy and laity. It is because they forget this that we continually hear persons speaking of the Church as it were only an hierarchy. If regulations of any kind are proposed for the prosperity of the Church, they start at the sound as if it meant the aggrandizement of the clergy: if the Church is said to be in danger, they only think of the fall of mitres and the impoverishing of benefices. The real truth is, that the Church’s privilege and authority belong to the whole body, whoever may be their immediate recipients and executors; and whoever maintains them, whether he be lay or clerical, maintains his own rights and his own patrimony.

And the part of the laity in the Church is no more purely political, than the part of the clergy is purely spiritual. Nothing could be less just than to deny to the laity a spiritual character, although they are not appointed to spiritual offices. The sacraments which the ministers distribute, and the laity partake with them, are spiritual; the one (that is, holy baptism) originating, the other (that is, the blessed eucharist) continuing a spiritual character in the recipients. The minister offers up spiritual lauds and prayers for his flock. Even external discipline has a spiritual object, and would be both absurd and unjust, if exercised over those who are not members of the Church spiritual as well as visible. And, finally and principally, the ever blessed fountain and stream of a true spiritual character, without whom no external sacrament or rite can be to any purpose, even the HOLY GHOST, is purchased by CHRIST for his whole Church; and sent from HIM and from the FATHER, not exclusively upon any order of men, but upon all, from the highest order of the clergy to the least and lowest of the laity who maintain their spiritual character. As the precious unguent poured upon Aaron’s head, flowed not only over his own beard, but even to the skirts of his clothing; so does that spiritual stream of a holy character flow from the Head of the Church, not on those only whose office is sacred, but on those also whose character is sanctified; not only upon those whose part it is to govern, but on those also who must obey in spiritual things. And so it is that the mystical temple of CHRIST “groweth together in CHRIST, which is the Head; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body.”

And this is, indeed, the right clue to the interpretation of those passages of Scripture in which all CHRIST’S people are designated as priests, and which have been perverted into an authority for the exercise of clerical functions by the laity. It is the spiritual character, not the spiritual office, of every Christian, of which St. Peter speaks, when he says, “Ye also, as living stones, are built up, a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices unto GOD by JESUS CHRIST.” And again, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.” So also when St. John says, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto GOD the FATHER, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever:” and when Moses declares of the Israelites, as they typified the Christian Church, “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation:” they convey an assurance to us, not of the priestly office, but of the spiritual character and privileges of every member of the Church of CHRIST.

And it is as partaking in this spiritual character with them that the laity share with the clergy in many other things. They have the same privilege of the Christian altar, and for their children the same privilege of the Christian font: the promises of GOD to them are the same; and spiritual benefits, both present and future, clergy and laity share together: their duties are almost all of them in common, varying principally in the external manner in which they are to be performed: and even where there is the most apparent exclusion of the laity from the ceremonial, they are by no means excluded from the authority which sanctions the ceremonial. It would be most wicked and presumptuous for a layman to take on himself the ordination of another, or the consecration of the eucharist; but it would be nothing short of heresy, though a new heresy, to deny that the bishop and the priest perform these acts with that authority which is vested in the Church, as a society of faithful men, lay as well as clerical. It is in the name, not of the clergy, but of the Church, that the bishop confirms and ordains; that the minister pronounces absolution and a blessing; that discipline is enforced, and penitents are restored: and in all these cases the minister is the representative and instrument, not of the clergy, nor of his individual bishop, but of the Church at large. But it is not only in the authority and privileges of the Church, but in its responsibility also, that the laity are included. If a Church fall into heresy, or error of doctrine or of practice, though the hierarchy may be the chief instigators and movers of such error, yet the laity, still maintaining their communion, are necessarily involved in their sin. And so, on the other hand, if the laity fall into spiritual error, the clergy also are responsible, and involved in the sin. It mattered not whether it were the heresy of the Nicolaitanes, or the religious indifference of the body of a Church which had left its first love: the candlestick was removed, not from the clergy only in the one case, nor from the laity only in the other, but all were swept away together. The laity among the Arians were not excused because they left the Catholic faith in company with their bishops; nor were those of the clergy, who, in latter days, cast off episcopal authority because of the clamours of the people, thus justified. GOD only can precisely judge of the degree of sin in parties thus situated; but as a point of sound theory in religion and theology, the clergy are concerned in the errors of their flocks; the laity are involved in the heresies and schisms, and other ecclesiastical crimes, of their bishops and pastors.

This mutual responsibility of clergy and laity would result even from the principles of a civil polity, of the nature of which the Church, as a society, necessarily partakes: but they follow still more manifestly among the consequences of her spiritual union; and are plainly stated in the sacred Scriptures, by the rules of which the Church is ever to be judged. Surely nothing can be clearer than the words of St. Paul, “Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it; now ye are the body of CHRIST, and members in particular.”

Thus we see that, in matters purely spiritual, the laity are very seriously responsible for the proceedings of the Church as carried on, well or ill, by its appointed ministers. How greatly they are interested in the same matters, needs not to be proved at much length; since the validity of the sacraments, the soundness of doctrine, the catholicity of fellowship, certainly concern them quite as nearly as the clergy themselves. But so soon as we take into consideration those matters in which the Church partakes of the nature of a civil polity, we find the interest of the laity in its regulations so much increased, that sometimes they are even more nearly concerned than the clergy themselves. A single line of George Herbert will illustrate these principles; he says,

“The Scriptures bid us fast; the Church says now.”

Here in the Scriptural part, (the propriety and benefit of fasting,) laity and clergy are concerned equally; but so soon as the Church exerts its authority in the way of polity, (to determine the time,) the laity, upon whose secular habits a religious exercise makes a greater incursion, are by far the most concerned. The same thing holds in every rule for the regulation of penance or communion, for the determining of the proper recipients of baptism, the proper candidates for holy orders, and the like. And to go a step farther; there are parts of the ecclesiastical polity which are spiritual only by accident, and indirectly; such as the means used in collecting funds for charitable or religious purposes, and for the carrying on of the government of the Church; and in these the immediate and direct interest of the laity is altogether paramount.

These, which are the true Church principles on the subject of the clergy and the laity, will be sufficient to answer the charge of priestcraft against those of the clergy who enforce sound principles on this subject; and to make those of the laity who wish to act up to the high principles which they profess, feel that as churchmen they possess a sacred character which must not be lightly compromised, and spiritual privileges which they may well think worth contending for, against the low principles of dissenters and quasidissenters.—Poole on the Admission of Lay Members to the Synods of the Church in Scotland.

LAMBETH ARTICLES. Certain articles so called because they were drawn up at Lambeth, in the year 1595, by the then archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London.

It appears that towards the close of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, the errors of Calvinism had spread among the clergy of the Church of England. These errors were opposed by some of the most learned divines of Cambridge. But the opponents of Calvinism were denounced as persons addicted to Popery; and the heads of houses ventured to censure one divine because he denied some points of Calvinistic doctrine, and spoke disrespectfully of Calvin, Peter Martyr, and others. Archbishop Whitgift, and some other bishops, were inclined to take part with the heads of houses at Cambridge, and, adhering to the popular side, to condemn the orthodox divines. They met together at Lambeth palace, and there Archbishop Whitgift, Dr. Vaughan, elect of Bangor, Dr. Fletcher, elect of London, Dr. Tyndall, dean of Ely, and the Calvinistic divines from Cambridge, digested under the nine following heads what are called the Lambeth Articles:

“1. GOD hath from eternity predestinated certain persons to life, and hath reprobated certain persons unto death. 2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in the persons predestinated; but the alone will of GOD’S good pleasure. 3. The predestinate are a predetermined and certain number, which can neither be lessened nor increased. 4. Such as are not predestinated to salvation shall inevitably be condemned on account of their sins. 5. The true, lively, and justifying faith, and the spirit of GOD justifying, is not extinguished, doth not utterly fail, doth not vanish away in the elect, either finally or totally. 6. A true believer, that is, one who is endued with justifying faith, is certified by the full assurance of faith that his sins are forgiven, and that he shall be everlastingly saved by CHRIST. 7. Saving grace is not allowed, is not imparted, is not granted to all men, by which they may be saved if they will. 8. No man is able to come to CHRIST, unless it be given him, and unless the FATHER draw him; and all men are not drawn by the FATHER, that they may come to his SON. 9. It is not in the will or power of every man to be saved.”

These articles, asserting the most offensive of the Calvinistic positions, were not accepted by the Church, and consequently were of no authority, although they were employed at the time to silence those by authority against whom argument could not prevail. The prelates who drew them up acted without authority, for they were not assembled in a synod. A synod is an assembly of bishops and presbyters duly convened. In this instance there was no convention. The meeting was a mere private conference; and the decision was of no more weight than the charge of a bishop delivered without a consultation with his clergy, which is only the expression of a private opinion, it may be that even of an Arian or Sabellian; and which, though heard with respect, is only to be treated as the opinion of an individual, until the clergy have officially received it as orthodox: it was to be received with respect, and examined with reference not to the authority with which it was given, but according to its merits. There can be no greater proof of the absence of Calvinism from the Thirty-nine Articles than the fact, that the very persons who were condemning the orthodox for innovation, were compelled to invent new articles before they could make our Church Calvinistic. The conduct of the archbishop gave much offence to many pious persons, and especially to the queen; and this attempt to introduce Calvinism into our Church entirely failed.

LAMBETH DEGREES. The popular designation given to degrees conferred by the archbishop of Canterbury, who has the power of giving degrees in any of the faculties. This is supposed to be a relic of legislative authority.

LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. A canonical book of the Old Testament. (See Jeremiah.)

This book is a kind of funeral elegy on the death of the good king Josiah, as appears from what is recorded: “Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing men and singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel; and behold they are written in the Lamentations.” This is confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus.

St. Jerome imagines this prophet laments the loss of Josiah, as the beginning of those calamities which followed: accordingly he prophetically bewails the miserable state of the Jews, and the destruction of Jerusalem; though some are of opinion, the Lamentations were composed after the taking of Jerusalem.

The first two chapters of this book are employed in describing the calamities of the siege of Jerusalem. In the third, the author deplores the persecutions he himself had suffered. The fourth turns upon the desolation of the city and temple, and the misfortune of Zedekiah. The fifth chapter is a kind of form of prayer for the Jews in their dispersion and captivity. At the end of all, he speaks of the cruelty of the Edomites, who had insulted Jerusalem in her misery.

The first four chapters of the Lamentations are in acrostic verse, and abecedary; every verse or couplet beginning with one of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, in their alphabetical order.

There is a preface to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in the Greek, and in the Vulgar Latin, which is not in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase, nor in the Syriac; and which was manifestly added by way of Argument of the book.

LAMMAS DAY. A festival of the Romish Church, otherwise called St. Peter’s chains, or St. Peter in the fetters, in memory of the imprisonment of that apostle. Two derivations have been given of the name Lammas. 1st, The literal sense, arising from a ludicrous notion of the vulgar, that St. Peter was patron of the lambs, from our SAVIOUR’S words to him, “Feed my lambs.” 2. From a Saxon word, meaning “Loaf-mass,” it having been the custom of the Saxons to offer on this day (August 1) an oblation of loaves made of new wheat, as the first-fruits of their new corn.

LAMPADARY. An officer in the ancient Church of Constantinople; so called, because it was his business to see that the lamps of the church were lighted, and to carry a taper before the emperor, the empress, and the patriarch, when they went to church, or in procession. The taper, borne before the emperor, was encompassed with several golden circles representing crowns: those carried before the empress and patriarch had but one. These tapers were emblematical, and signified that these illustrious personages were to enlighten the rest of the world by the splendour of their virtues.

LANTERN. The central tower of a cross church, when it is open over the cross. This seems always to have been the vernacular term for such a tower. Thus, William de Chambre says of Bishop Skirlaw, “Magnam partem campanilis, vulgo lantern, ministerii Eboracensis construxit.”

LAPSE. When a patron neglects to present a clergyman to a benefice in his gift, within six months after its vacancy, the benefice lapses to the bishop; and if he does not collate within six months, it lapses to the archbishop; and if he neglects to collate within six months, it lapses to the Crown.

LAPSED. Those persons were so called, who in time of persecution denied the faith of CHRIST; but again, on persecution ceasing, sought reconciliation and Church communion.

The discipline with which such persons were visited included a long absence from the holy eucharist, which however was not denied them in case of extreme illness. And the maternal solicitude of the Church for her sons was so great, that when dangerous sickness was prevalent, or when another persecution seemed to impend, it somewhat relaxed the rule. This is especially shown in the conduct and writings of St. Cyprian; in whose times the case of the lapsed was brought before the Church, by circumstances, more fully, and was also more clearly determined, than it had been before. One of his most celebrated tracts refers especially to their case.

Different circumstances gave to different individuals of the lapsed the names of Sacrificati, Thurificati, and Libellatici. (See these words.) The Traditores were not held wholly free from the crime of the lapsed. (See Traditors.)

Those who absolutely and for ever fell away were classed by the Church as heathens, and had of course no ecclesiastical position, however low.

LATERAN COUNCILS. Under this head, to which reference has been made under the article on Councils, we shall include all the councils of the Romish Church.

Lateran (I.) in the year 1123. It was convened by Pope Calixtus II., who presided in person. It consisted of 300 bishops. It decreed that investiture to ecclesiastical dignities was the exclusive right of the Church; and that the practice of secular princes giving such investiture was an usurpation. The celibacy of the clergy was also decreed.

Lateran (II.) in 1139, composed of nearly 1000 bishops, under the presidency of Pope Innocent II. It decided on the due election of this pope, and condemned the errors of Peter de Bruys and Arnold of Brescia.

Lateran (III.) in 1179. At this council, with Pope Alexander III. at their head, 302 bishops condemned what they were pleased to call the “errors and impieties” of the Waldenses and Albigenses.

Lateran (IV.) in 1215, composed of 412 bishops, under Innocent III., had for its objects the recovery of the Holy Land, reformation of abuses, and the extirpation of heresy.

Lyons (I.) in 1245, consisting of 140 bishops, was convened for the purpose of promoting the Crusades, restoring ecclesiastical discipline, and dethroning Frederick II., emperor of Germany. It was also decreed at this council that cardinals should wear red hats.

Lyons (II.) in 1274. There were 500 bishops and about 1000 inferior clergy present. Its principal object was the reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches.

Vienne in Gaul, 1311, consisting of 300 bishops, who were convoked to suppress the Knights Templars, condemn those who were accused of heresy, and assist the Christians in Palestine.

Constance, in 1414–1418. The German emperor, the pope, 20 princes, 140 counts, more than 20 cardinals, 7 patriarchs, 20 archbishops, 91 bishops, 600 other clerical dignitaries, and about 4000 priests, were present at this celebrated ecclesiastical assembly, which was occasioned by the divisions and contests that had arisen about the affairs of the Church. From 1305–1377, the popes had resided at Avignon; but in 1378, Gregory XI. removed the papal seat back to Rome: after his death, the French and Italian cardinals could not agree upon a successor, and so each party chose its own candidate. This led to a schism, which lasted forty years. Indeed, when the emperor Sigismund ascended the throne, in 1411, there were three popes, each of whom had anathematized the two others. To put an end to these disorders, and to stop the diffusion of the doctrines of Huss, Sigismund went in person to Italy, France, Spain, and England, and (as the emperor Maximilian I. used to say, in jest, performing the part of the beadle of the Roman empire) summoned a general council. The pretended heresies of Wickliff and Huss were here condemned, and the latter, notwithstanding the assurances of safety given him by the emperor, was burnt, July 7, 1415; and his friend and companion, Jerome of Prague, met with the same fate, May 30, 1416. The three popes were formally deposed, and Martin V. was legally chosen to the chair of St. Peter.

Basle, 1431, under the presidency of the cardinal legate Juliano Cæsarini of St. Angelo, after holding not fewer than forty-five sessions, terminated its labours, May 16, 1443. Its objects, which were partly attained, were to extirpate heresies, limit the power of the pope, effect a reformation of the clergy, and consolidate the interests of the Church. Its decrees are not admitted into any of the Roman collections, and are considered of no authority by the Roman lawyers. They are, however, recognised in points of canon law in France and Germany; and though some later concordats have modified the application of them, they have never been formally and entirely annulled.

Florence, 1439–1442. It was composed of 141 bishops, the patriarch of Constantinople, and the legates of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It effected a renunciation of schism on the part of the Greeks, and an abjuration of heresy on the part of the Armenians.

Lateran (V.) in 1512, convened by Pope Julius II., to oppose another held by nine cardinals of high rank the year before at Pisa, with a view to bridle his wild animosity, turbulence, and contumacy. It declared that council schismatic, abolished the Pragmatic Sanction, and strengthened the power of the Roman see.

Trent, convoked and opened by Paul III. in 1545; continued under Julius III.; and, after numerous interruptions, brought to a close in 1563, under the pontificate of Pius IV. Its object was professedly to reform ecclesiastical abuses, but really to counteract and crush the Reformation. (See Trent.)

LATITUDINARIANS. Certain divines so called from the latitude of their principles. The term is chiefly applied to some divines of the seventeenth century, who were attached to the English establishment, as such, but regarded episcopacy, and forms of public worship, as among the things indifferent. They would not exclude from their communion those who differed from them in those particulars. Many of the latitudinarian divines commenced as Calvinists, and ended as Socinians.

LATTER-DAY SAINTS. (See Mormonists.)

LATRIA. (See Dulia.)

LAUDS. The service which followed next after the nocturn was so designated before the Reformation. It was sometimes called matin lauds. The lauds are now, in the reformed Church of England, merged in the matins. The office of Lauds contains the Benedicite and the Benediction, as that of Matins does the Te Deum. Both have psalmody and hymns.

LAUDS, in Church music, hymns of praise.

LAURA. A name given to a collection of little cells at some distance from each other, in which the hermits of ancient times lived together in a wilderness. These hermits did not live in community, but each monk provided for himself in his distinct cell. The most celebrated Lauras mentioned in ecclesiastical history were in Palestine; as the Laura of St. Euthymius, St. Saba, the Laura of the Towers, &c. The most ancient monasteries in Ireland were Lauras.

LAVACRUM. (See Piscina.)

LAY BAPTISM. (See Baptism.) Baptism administered by persons not in holy orders, i. e. by laymen.

It is a first principle in the Church of GOD, that no one has a right to execute any function of the ministry, till he has been lawfully invested with the ministerial office. It is also confessed that the administration of baptism is one of the functions of the ministry. It follows, therefore, that none have a right to administer baptism, but those holding ministerial authority. Here, then, there can be no dispute; laymen have no right to baptize. But what if they should baptize in spite of this virtual interdict? Is there any force or validity in an act done in open violation of a fixed principle of the Church? Here is the important question of the controversy—the very “pith of the matter;” and it resolves itself into this simple inquiry:—Suppose that a layman has no right to baptize, has he also no ability? The distinction between these it will be well to keep in view. A man may have ability to do an action without the right to exercise that ability, and so vice versâ. And again, a citizen may be in full possession of intellectual and physical qualifications for a public office; but without either right or ability to perform the authoritative acts of such an office, till these are conferred upon him by the superior power. Whence then does a layman derive any ability to baptize? We do not here mean the ability to perform the physical acts of reciting the form, and pouring the water, (for these are in every one’s power,) but that of standing as GOD’S agent in effecting “a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness;” in conferring remission of sins, and declaring that “hereby,” in this very act of usurpation, “children of wrath are made the children of grace.” How can any one, not a lawful minister, possess ability to this extent? With all humility we reply, that we know not, unless the sacrament work ex opere operato: and thus the Romish Church is so far consistent in allowing midwives and others to baptize. She does believe that the sacrament works ex opere operato; but is it not a little singular that the extremes of ultra-Protestantism and Romanism should here meet? If a layman should perform the external part of ordination, confirmation, absolution, consecration of the eucharist, &c., we agree in the conclusion, that this is null and void, because he has no power over the internal and spiritual part of such offices. If baptism, therefore, be anything more than an external ceremony, the same conclusion would seem to follow, for anything we can learn from Scripture to the contrary. We have no proof that CHRIST ever promised to sanction lay baptism; or that he conferred the power of baptizing on any but the clergy; or that the apostles ever imparted it to any other but clergy; or that CHRIST ever pledged himself to bind or loose in heaven what laymen might bind or loose on earth. To say the least, then, there is very great uncertainty as to the spiritual effect of baptisms administered by those whom neither the Head of the Church, nor his apostles, ever commissioned to baptize. This appears to us a manifest result of the principle from which we started: and, unless that principle be preserved, we see not how the integrity of the Church can be maintained, or how the prerogatives and powers of the ministry can be asserted; or why, except as a mere matter of expediency, there should be any ministry at all. For, if it be granted that though laymen have no right to perform priestly offices, yet, if they choose, they can perform them; i. e. their usurped acts are ratified in heaven, equally with those of an empowered ministry; this is to overturn the very foundations of apostolic order; to deprive the clergy of their Divine commission, or to effectually neutralize it; and, finally, to reduce their office, in the judgment of the world, to the low rank of a mere literary profession, or ecclesiastical employment.

So much, then, for the legitimate consequences of the principle on which the doctrine of the ministry rests. But when we turn to the practice of the Church, we are struck with an apparent contrariety. In very early times, the baptisms of laymen, and of degraded or schismatical priests, were not in all cases repeated, though there were not wanting those who, like St. Cyprian, were resolved to maintain the strictest view of their invalidity. That such baptisms were suffered to pass in the century next after the apostles, it would be difficult to prove; and in the succeeding age the probability is, that they were only tolerated in cases of extreme necessity. Still the fact is undeniable, that for more than a thousand years lay baptisms have occurred in the Church, and in such cases re-baptization was not always thought necessary.

How, then, could the Church vindicate herself in a procedure which seemed subversive of one of her cardinal principles? for, at first sight, the charge of inconsistency appears inevitable; and yet, as every tyro knows, the ancient Church was tenacious of her rights, and exact in her administration, almost to a proverb. To us, the key to the matter seems to have been this. While the Church acknowledged no authority in laymen to baptize, yet if they did go through the regular forms, the external part of the sacrament was actually performed. Hence, in all cases, diligent inquiry was made whether the element of water was applied, and whether this was done in the name of the sacred TRINITY. On proof of this, the concession was made that so far baptism had been given. But while the Church allowed that laymen could perform the external part of baptism, she seems to have denied altogether that they could communicate its spiritual graces; and, therefore, if we mistake not, a lay baptism was never esteemed perfect, complete, and without defect, i. e. valid both in its external and internal parts. A person so baptized, on returning to the unity of the Church, or on application for admittance to its higher privileges, was received without the repetition of the external part of the initiatory sacrament, but was endued with remission and the HOLY SPIRIT, by the laying on of the bishop’s hands in confirmation, these spiritual gifts being those which were wanting in the applicant’s lay baptism. Now, if this were so, the Church stands clear of any charge of inconsistency; nay, more, she exhibits her adherence to principle in the strongest light, by treating lay baptism as a mere form of that sacrament, “without the power thereof.” This, we think, was the ordinary practice of the Church. And though confirmation is an ordinance distinct from baptism, yet it always preserved a closer alliance with that sacrament than with the holy eucharist, being anciently given either in immediate connexion with baptism, or at a period very little subsequent to it.

So far as the irregular baptisms of heretics and schismatics were concerned, it is incontestable that the compensating practice just referred to was very generally adopted. And that confirmation was given, in such cases, not only for the conferring of its own proper graces, but also with the direct object of correcting the deficiencies of a previous baptism, is manifest from the language of early writers. Leo, in writing to Nicetius, bishop of Aquileia, remarks, “that such as received baptism from heretics * * * were to be received only by invocation of the HOLY SPIRIT, and imposition of hands, and that because they had before only received the form of baptism, without the sanctifying power of it.” St. Augustine “supposes,” says Bingham, “that they who are thus baptized received the outward visible sacrament, but not the invisible, internal, sanctifying grace of the SPIRIT.” These graces, “heretics and schismatics were not supposed qualified to give, nor they who desired baptism at their hands qualified to receive, till they returned with repentance and charity to the unity of the Church again; and then the Church, by imposition of hands, and invocation of the HOLY SPIRIT, might obtain for them those blessings and graces which might have been had in baptism, &c. This was the general sense of the Church; for which reason they appointed that imposition of hands should be given to such as returned to the Church, in order to obtain the grace of the HOLY GHOST for them by prayer, which they wanted before, as having received baptism from those who had no power to give the HOLY GHOST. Innocent says, that ‘their ministrations were defective in this, that they could not give the HOLY GHOST; and therefore such as were baptized by them were imperfect, and were to be received with imposition of hands, that they might thereby obtain the grace of the HOLY GHOST.’” “This,” adds Bingham, “was the true and only method of supplying the defects of heretical baptism, as is evident from all the passages which speak of the use of the sacred unction, which was joined with imposition of hands and prayer, to implore the grace of remission of sins, and the other gifts of the HOLY SPIRIT, which were wanting before.” Confirmation was therefore regarded as supplying all that was deficient in the unauthorized baptism of heretics and schismatics; and though less is said about the usurped baptism of orthodox laymen, yet analogy would lead us to judge that a resort was had to the same expedient to relieve their imperfection. Thus much we know, that the ancient Church stood firmly on principle, and yet that laymen sometimes baptized, in direct defiance of that principle, and in such cases the external part was frequently not repeated; therefore, by some process, this imperfect baptism was legalized and consummated, and we read of no other such process than that just stated.

In the Church of England there is some diversity both of opinion and practice with respect to lay baptisms. By some persons they are regarded as valid; by others, as imperfect, till ratified by confirmation, or by the use of the hypothetical form; by a third class, as totally invalid. From the time of Augustine, the first archbishop of Canterbury, till that of Archbishop Bancroft, in the reign of James I., lay baptisms were recognised in our Church; but they were baptisms by authorized persons, persons who had received episcopal licence for the act. In the reign of Edward VI., it was ordered in the Office of Private Baptism, that they “that be present shall call upon GOD for his grace, and say the LORD’S Prayer, if the time will suffer, and then one of them shall name the child, and dip him in water, or pour water upon him, saying,” &c. But the rubric now stands altered thus: “First let the minister of the parish (or in his absence any other lawful minister that can be procured) with them that are present call upon GOD and say the LORD’S Prayer, and so many of the collects appointed to be said before in the form of Public Baptism, as the time and present exigence will suffer. And then the child being named by some one that is present, the minister shall throw water upon it, saying,” &c. This would seem to show a desire on the part of the Church to prevent laymen from baptizing, though it attaches, of course, such great importance to this holy sacrament, that she permits any lawful minister, i. e. any minister of the Church, to officiate on such an occasion, even though in another man’s parish.

Having now given the reader an abstract of the state of this question, we leave him to judge as well as he can, where lies the preponderance of truth, and the place of greatest safety. That the lawfully ordained ministers of CHRIST have the power and right of administering true baptism, is incontestable. Whether any others possess the like power, we shall know and acknowledge, when they produce their commission to “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.”

LAY-BROTHERS, among the Romanists, are the servants of a convent.

A lay-brother wears a different habit from that of the religious: he never enters into the choir, nor is present at the chapters. He is not in any orders, nor makes any vow, except of constancy and obedience. He is employed in the temporal concerns of the convent, and has the care of the kitchen, gate, &c.

The institution of lay-brothers began in the eleventh century. The persons, on whom this title and office were conferred, were too ignorant to become clerks, and therefore applied themselves wholly to bodily work, in which they expressed that zeal for religion, which could not exert itself in spiritual exercises.

In the nunneries there are also lay-sisters, who are retained in the convents for the service of the nuns, in like manner as the lay-brothers are for that of the monks.

LAY-CLERKS. Clerici Laici. Singing men so called in the Statutes of the Cathedrals, founded or remodeled by King Henry VII. In general, their number was commensurate with that of the Minor Canons. Lay-Vicars are sometimes incorrectly so styled.

LAY-VICARS. (See Vicars Choral.)

LAY-ELDERS. After Calvin had settled the presbyterian form of government at Geneva, and that model was followed elsewhere, laymen were admitted into a share or part of the administration of the Church, under the denomination of lay-elders. This sort of officers was utterly unknown in the Church before the sixteenth century, and is now admitted only where the presbyterian government obtains.

LAYING ON OF HANDS. (See Imposition of Hands.)

LEAGUE, SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT. (See Confessions of Faith and Covenant.) This was a compact established in 1643, to form a bond of union between the Scottish and English Presbyterians. Those who took it pledged themselves, without respect of persons, to endeavour the “extirpation of Popery and prelacy, (i. e. church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness.” It was opposed by the parliament and assembly at Westminster, and ratified by the General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk, in 1645. In 1650, Charles II., under compulsion and hypocritically, declared his approbation of it. The league was ratified by parliament in 1651, and subscription required of every member. At the Restoration it was voted illegal by parliament.

The following is the document which is still bound up with the Westminster Confession, as one of the formularies of the Scottish Establishment, though the ministers are no longer obliged to sign it:—

THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT for Reformation and Defence of Religion, the Honour and Happiness of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the Three Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland; agreed upon by Commissioners from the Parliament and Assembly of Divines in England, with Commissioners of the Convention of Estates, and General Assembly in Scotland; approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and by both Houses of Parliament and Assembly of Divines in England, and taken and subscribed by them, Anno 1643; and thereafter, by the said authority, taken and subscribed by all Ranks in Scotland and England the same Year; and ratified by Act of the Parliament of Scotland, Anno 1644: And again renewed in Scotland, with an Acknowledgment of Sins, and Engagement to Duties, by all Ranks, Anno 1648, and by Parliament 1649; and taken and subscribed by King Charles II. at Spey, June 23, 1650; and at Scoon, January 1, 1651.

WE Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers of the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, by the providence of GOD, living under one King, and being of one reformed religion, having before our eyes the glory of GOD, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, the honour and happiness of the King’s Majesty and his posterity, and the true publick liberty, safety, and peace of the kingdoms, wherein every one’s private condition is included: And calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, attempts, and practices of the enemies of GOD, against the true religion and professors thereof in all places, especially in these three kingdoms, ever since the reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power, and presumption are of late, and at this time, increased and exercised, whereof the deplorable state of the church and kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the church and kingdom of England, and the dangerous estate of the church and kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies; we have now at last, (after other means of supplication, remonstrance, protestation, and sufferings,) for the preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and destruction, according to the commendable practice of these kingdoms in former times, and the example of GOD’S people in other nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and solemn League and Covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most High GOD, do swear,

I. THAT we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church-government, directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.

II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is, church-government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical Officers depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, lest we partake in other men’s sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms.

III. We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our several vocations, endeavour, with our estates and lives, mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms; and to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion, and liberties of the kingdoms; that the world may bear witness with our conscience of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesty’s just power and greatness.

IV. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties amongst the people, contrary to this League and Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively, or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient.

V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is, by the good providence of GOD, granted unto us, and hath been lately concluded and settled by both Parliaments; we shall each one of us, according to our place and interest, endeavour that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity; and that justice may be done upon the wilful opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent article.

VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof; and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause which so much concerneth the glory of GOD, the good of the kingdom, and honour of the King; but shall, all the days of our lives, zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition, and promote the same, according to our power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and, what we are not able ourselves to suppress or overcome, we shall reveal and make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: All which we shall do as in the sight of God.

And, because these kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against GOD, and his Son JESUS CHRIST, as is too manifest by our present distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof; we profess and declare before GOD and the world, our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms: especially, that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the gospel; that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof; and that we have not endeavoured to receive CHRIST in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of him in our lives; which are the causes of other sins and transgressions so much abounding amongst us: and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire, and endeavour for ourselves, and all others under our power and charge, both in publick and in private, in all duties we owe to GOD and man, to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the example of a real reformation; that the Lord may turn away his wrath and heavy indignation, and establish these churches and kingdoms in truth and peace. And this Covenant we make in the presence of ALMIGHTY GOD, the Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer at that great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed; most humbly beseeching the LORD to strengthen us by his HOLY SPIRIT for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and encouragement to other Christian churches, groaning under, or in danger of, the yoke of antichristian tyranny, to join in the same or like association and covenant, to the glory of GOD, the enlargement of the kingdom of JESUS CHRIST, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths.

LECTURER. Long prior to the Reformation persons were appointed to read lectures, chiefly on the schoolmen, before the universities. Hence they were called lecturers. From the universities they passed into monasteries, and eventually into parishes: either upon the settlement of a stipend to support them, or upon voluntary contribution of the inhabitants under the licence of the bishop. The lecture in parish churches was nothing more than a sermon, extra ordinem, as being no part of the duty of the incumbent, and therefore delivered at such times as not to interfere with his ministrations. Although lecturers were continued after the Reformation, and we read of Travers being evening lecturer at the Temple in the reign of Elizabeth, the first injunction respecting them is in the canons of James I. In the year 1604 directions for their conduct were issued by Archbishop Bancroft; and in 1622 the Primate Abbot enjoined that no lecturer “should preach upon Sundays and holy-days in the afternoon, but upon some part of the catechism, or some text taken out of the creed, LORD’S Prayer, or ten commandments.” At this period they do not appear to have been numerous; but, about the year 1626, their numbers were much increased by twelve persons having been legally empowered to purchase impropriations belonging to laymen, with the proceeds of which they were allowed to provide parishes, where the clergy were not qualified to preach, with preaching ministers, or lecturers. The power thus granted to the feoffees of the impropriations, ostensibly for the good of the Church, was soon abused, and made a handle of by Puritanism in the appointment of unorthodox preachers. Dr. Heylyn, in an act sermon, preached at Oxford, first pointed out the evil of this new society. Accordingly, in 1633, Archbishop Laud procured a bill to be exhibited by the attorney-general in the Court of Exchequer against the feoffees, wherein they were charged with diverting the charity wherewith they were intrusted to other uses, by appointing a morning lecturer, a most violent Puritan, as Clarendon also witnesses, to St. Antholin’s church, London, where no preacher was required; and generally nominating nonconformists to their lectureships. These charges having been established, the court condemned their proceedings, as dangerous to the Church and State, at the same time pronouncing the gifts and feoffments made to such uses illegal; and so dissolved the same, confiscating the money to the king’s use. But this judgment does not appear to have had the desired effect; since we find the bishop of Norwich, three years afterwards, (1636,) certifying that lecturers were very frequent in Suffolk, and many of them set up by private gentlemen, without either consulting the ordinary, or observing the canons and discipline of the Church. The lecturers in the country were also said to run riot, and live wide of discipline. In 1637, therefore, Laud proceeded with increased rigour against them, and obtained the king’s instructions for prohibiting all lecturers preaching, who refused to say the Common Prayer in hood and surplice—a vestment which, being considered by them as a rag of Popery, they refused to wear. So there seems every reason to coincide with the bishop of London in his charge of 1842, wherein he assigns the origin of the disuse of the surplice in preaching to these lecturers. They also introduced the afternoon sermon, and thus, according to Archbishop Wake, were the first to bring into disrepute the venerable custom of catechising. When in 1641 the revenues of archbishops and bishops, deans and chapters, were confiscated, the advowsons and impropriations belonging to them were employed in providing lecturers, who, under the garb of superior sanctity, “turned religion into rebellion, and faith into faction.” For these, their innovations, their avarice, and their faction, lecturers have been somewhat roughly handled by Selden in his Table Talk.

After the Restoration their evil influence was sufficiently guarded against by the Act of Uniformity, which enacts that no person shall be allowed or received as a lecturer, unless he declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer, and to the use of all the rites, ceremonies, forms, and orders therein contained. It is further enacted, that prayers shall always be said before a lecture is delivered. Archbishop Sheldon (1665) issued the last orders concerning lectures and lecturers. The incumbent may at any time prevent a lecturer preaching by occupying the pulpit himself. Lecturers of parishes are now generally elected by the vestry or principal inhabitants, and are usually afternoon preachers. There are also lecturers in some cathedral churches, as the divinity lectureship at St. Paul’s, now a sinecure, (see Prælector,) and several lectureships have been founded by private individuals, such as Lady Moyer’s, Mr. Boyle’s, the Bampton at Oxford, and the Hulsean at Cambridge. The act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 59, intituled “An act for better regulating the offices of lecturers and parish clerks,” authorizes the bishop, with the consent of the incumbent, to require a lecturer or preacher to perform such clerical or ministerial duties, as assistant curate, or otherwise, within the parish, &c., as the bishop, with the assent of the incumbent, shall think proper. The following papers are to be sent to the bishop by a clergyman to be licensed.

1. A certificate of his having been duly elected to the office, or an appointment under the hand and seal of the person or persons having power to appoint; on the face of which instrument it should be shown by whom and in what manner the office had been vacated.

2. A certificate signed by the incumbent of the church, of his consent to the election or appointment.

3. Letters of orders, deacon, and priest.

4. Letters testimonial, by three beneficed clergymen. (See form No. 3, for Stipendiary Curates, adding “and moreover we believe him in our consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be licensed to the said lectureship.”)

Before the licence is granted, the same subscriptions, declarations, and oaths are to be made and taken, as in the case of a licence to a stipendiary curacy, and the lecturer is to read the Thirty-nine Articles.

Within three months after he is licensed, he is to read, in the church where he is appointed lecturer, the declaration appointed by the Act of Uniformity, and also the certificate of his having subscribed it before.

LECTURES. (See Bampton, Boyle, Donnellan, Hulsean, Moyer, and Warburton.)

LECTURN, or LECTERN. The reading desk in the choir of ancient churches and chapels. The earliest examples remaining are of wood, many of them beautifully carved. At a later period it was commonly of brass, often formed of the figure of an eagle with out-spread wings. (See Reading Desk and Eagle.)

The lectern in English cathedrals generally stands in the midst of the choir facing westwards. They were formerly more common in collegiate churches and chapels than now, as ancient ground-plans and engravings show. In many places the fine old eagles or carved desks are thrown into a corner and neglected.

When the capitular members read the lessons, they usually do so from the stalls. The regularity of this custom may be doubted; its impropriety is evident. It appears from Dugd. Mon. viii. 1257, ed. 1830, that in Lichfield cathedral, all, whether canons or vicars, anciently read the collects and lessons, not from their own stalls, but from the proper place: the dean alone being permitted to read from his stall. At Canterbury the canons now use the lectern.

LEGATE. A person sent or deputed by another to act in his stead, but now confined to those who are deputed by the pope. Of these there are three kinds.

1. Legati a latere, cardinals sent from the side or immediate presence, and invested with most of the functions of the Roman pontiff himself. They can absolve the excommunicated, call synods, grant dispensations in cases reserved to the pope, fill up vacant dignities or benefices, and hear ordinary appeals. Otho and Othobon, sent into England by Gregory IX. and Clement IV. in the reign of Henry III., were of this order. The legatine constitutions, or ecclesiastical laws enacted in national synods convened by these cardinals, may be seen in Johnson’s collections. Cardinal Wolsey was also a legate a latere, and the bulls of Leo X. and Adrian VI., investing him with that high function, are printed by Rymer, from which we learn that he was empowered to visit the monasteries and the whole clergy of England, as well as to dispense with the laws of the Church for a year. Cardinal Pole was also legatus a latere.

2. Legati nati are such as hold the legatine commission ex officio, by virtue of office, and till the latter part of the tenth century they were the legates usually employed by the papal power. Before the Reformation, the archbishop of Canterbury was the legatus natus of England. It is a relic of the legatine authority which enables the primate of all England to confer degrees independently of the universities.

3. Legati dati, legates given, or special legates, hold authority from the pope by special commission, and are, pro tempore, superior to the other two orders. They began to be employed after the tenth century, and displayed unbounded arrogance. They held councils, promulgated canons, deposed bishops, and issued interdicts at their discretion. Simple deacons are frequently invested with this office, which at once places them above bishops.

It may be added, that the functions of a legate do not commence till he is forty miles distant from Rome. The first legate sent into England was John, precentor of St. Paul’s, and abbot of the monastery of St. Martin. He was deputed by Agutho, bishop of Rome, to Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, in 679. The first legate in Ireland was Gille, or Gillebert, bishop of Limerick early in the twelfth century. The Roman chants were introduced by him into Britain.

It was one of the ecclesiastical privileges of England, from the Norman Conquest, that no foreign legate should be obtruded upon the English, unless the king should desire it, upon some extraordinary emergency, as when a case was too difficult for the English prelates to determine. Hence, in the reign of Henry II., when Cardinal Vivian, who was sent legate into Scotland, Ireland, and Norway, arrived in England on his journey thither, the king sent the bishops of Winchester and Ely to ask him by whose authority he ventured into the kingdom without his leave: nor was he suffered to proceed till he had given an oath not to stretch his commission beyond his Highness’s pleasure in any particular.

LEGENDS. (Legenda.) By this word we are to understand those idle and ridiculous stories which the Romanists tell concerning their saints, and other persons, in order to support the credit of their religion.

The Legend was, originally, a book used in the old Romish churches, containing the lessons that were to be read at Divine service. Hence the lives of saints and martyrs came to be called legends, because chapters were to be read out of them at matins, and in the refectories of the religious houses. The Golden Legend is a collection of the lives of the saints, composed by James de Varase, better known by his Latin name of John de Voragine, or Varagnie, vicar-general of the Dominicans, and afterwards archbishop of Genoa, who died in 1298. It was received in the Church of Rome with great applause, which it maintained for 200 years; but, in truth, it is so full of ridiculous and romantic stories, that the Romanists themselves are ashamed of them.

The Romish Breviaries are full of legendary stories, which are appointed to be read on the saints’ days; which, being almost as numerous as the days in the year, there is hardly a day free from having idle tales mixed in its service. However, there have been considerable reformations made in this matter, several legends having been from time to time retrenched, insomuch that the service of the Church of Rome is much freer from these fooleries than formerly.

But, besides these written legends, there are others which may be called traditionary; by which we mean those idle stories which are delivered by word of mouth, and with which every traveller is entertained in his passage through Popish countries. We will just give the reader a specimen of these legends from Skippon.

At Mentz, in Germany, they relate that a drunken fellow swearing he would kill the first man he met, a crucifix coming by him, he struck at it with his sword, which drew blood from the crucifix, and the fellow immediately sunk up to the knees in the ground, where he stood till the magistrates apprehended him.

At Landsberg, in Bavaria, the Franciscans show a crucifix in their church over the altar, which, they pretend, a fellow spewed upon, and immediately the devil carried him away through the south wall, a round window being made where the hole was.

At Aix-la-Chapelle, in Germany, is a church of our Lady, on the south side of which is a great pair of brass gates, one of which has a crack in the brass, occasioned, as the legend says, thus:—When Charlemagne began the building of this church, the devil came and asked him what he intended; the emperor told him he designed a gaming-house, which the devil being very well satisfied with, went away. The emperor having set up some altar-tables, the devil came again, and inquired what these meant; Charlemagne replied, they were only for gamesters to play on, which encouraged the devil to give his assistance toward the building. Accordingly, he brought a great pair of brass gates on his shoulders; but, seeing a crucifix, he took to his heels, letting the gates fall, one of which in the fall received the crack, which is still shown.

At Milan, they tell you that St. Ambrose, who was bishop of that city, after a fight between the Catholics and the Arians, prayed that it might be revealed how to distinguish the bodies of one party from the other. His request was granted, and he found all the Catholics with their faces upwards, and the Arians with their faces downward.

At St. Agatha, a city of Calabria, is a chapel, in which they show a piece of a pillar, kept in a glass case, which they say shined when St. Paul preached there. It was broken by the Turks, when they took this place, and this piece was kept at Messina till they brought it hither. The Jesuits would have carried it to their college, but several men, they pretend, could not stir it; nevertheless, when it was resolved to place it in this chapel, one man’s strength was sufficient.

We will add but one legend more. At Malta they tell this story. Three Maltese knights were taken prisoners by the Turks, and carried before the Grand Seignior, who endeavoured, by sending priests to them, to convert them from the Christian religion; but they continued stedfast. The Grand Seignior’s daughter observing them, fell in love with them, and told her father she would endeavour their conversion. After this, she discovered to them her affection; but they informed her of their obligation to live chastely, and discoursed about the Christian religion, and their order, and promised to show her the true representation of the Virgin Mary. Accordingly, they undertook to carve a piece of wood; but none of them being skilful in that art, they prayed for assistance, and suddenly appeared the image of the Virgin shaped exactly like her. Upon the sight of this, the princess turned Christian, and procuring the means of their escape, went away with them, and placed herself in a nunnery.—Broughton.

LEGION, THUNDERING. In the wars of the Romans, under the emperor Marcus Antoninus, with the Marcomanni, the Roman troops being surrounded by the enemy, and in great distress from intense thirst, in the midst of a burning desert, a legion of Christians, who served in the army, imploring the merciful interposition of CHRIST, suddenly a storm with thunder and lightning came on, which refreshed the fainting Romans with its seasonable rain, while the lightning fell among the enemy, and destroyed many of them. The Christian legion to whose prayers this miraculous interposition was granted, was (according to the common account) thenceforth called The Thundering Legion.

LEIRE. (Probably a corruption of the old French lieure, for livre, a book.) A Service Book. “Two great leires, garnished with stones, and two lesser leires, garnished with stones and pearls,” are mentioned among the furniture of the communion table of the Royal Chapel, 1565, in Leland’s Collectania, vol. ii. pp. 691, 692, 1770.—Jebb.

LENT. (A Teutonic word: in German, Lenz, the “Spring.”) The holy seasons appointed by the Church will generally be found to date their rise from some circumstance in the life of our LORD, some event in Scripture history, or a desire to keep in remembrance the virtues and piety of the saints who adorned the early Church. But the origin of the season of Lent is not so obvious, though it is usually supposed that Lent is observed in commemoration of our SAVIOUR’S temptation and fasting of forty days in the wilderness. It is most probable that the Christian Lent originated from a regard to those words of the REDEEMER, “the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.” We learn from the history of the Church that the primitive Christians considered, that in this passage CHRIST has alluded to the institution of a particular season of fasting and prayer in his future Church. Accordingly they, in the first instance, began this solemn period on the afternoon of the day on which they commemorated the crucifixion, and continued it until the morning of that of the resurrection. The whole interval would thus be only about forty hours. But by degrees this institution suffered a considerable change, different however at different times and places. From the forty hours, or the two days, originally observed, it was extended to other additional days, but with great variety in their number, according to the judgment of the various Churches. Some fasted three days in the week before Easter, some four, and others six. A little after, some extended the fast to three weeks, and others to six, and other Churches appointed certain portions of seven weeks in succession. The result of all this was the eventual fixing of the time at forty days, commencing on the Wednesday in the seventh week before Easter, and excluding the intermediate Sundays. It is not, however, to be supposed that the Church remained long in uncertainty on this point, for it appears that the Lent of forty days can be traced to a period very near that of the apostles. That its term of forty days was settled at a very early period, is evident from the writings of the bishops of those times, who refer us, in vindication of it, to the example of Moses, Elias, and our LORD, all of whom fasted forty days. From all this, then, we arrive at the conclusion, that though fasting is frequently alluded to in the Scriptures as a Christian duty, yet the set times for it are to be referred solely to the authority of the Church. It may here be remarked, that the name we apply to this season is derived from the time of the year when it occurs. The term Lent, in the Saxon language, signifies Spring; and, as we use it, indicates merely the spring fast, preparatory to the rising of CHRIST from the grave.

The Lenten fast does not embrace all the days included between Ash Wednesday and Easter, for the Sundays are so many days above the number of forty. They are excluded, because the LORD’S day is always held as a festival, and never as a fast. These six Sundays are, therefore, called Sundays in Lent, not Sundays of Lent. They are in the midst of it, but do not form part of it. On them we continue, without interruption, to celebrate our SAVIOUR’S resurrection.

The principal days of Lent are, the first day, Passion Week, and particularly the Thursday and Friday in that week. The first day of Lent was formerly called the head of the fast, and also by the name which the Church retains—Ash Wednesday. In the Church of England there is a solemn service appointed for Ash Wednesday, under the title of a “Commination, or denouncing of GOD’S Anger and Judgments against Sinners.” This was designed to occupy, as far as could be, the place of the ancient penitential discipline, as is sufficiently declared in the beginning of the office in the English Prayer Book. The last week of Lent, called Passion Week, has always been considered as its most solemn season. It is called the Great Week, from the important transactions which are then commemorated; and Holy Week, from the increase of devotional exercises among believers. The Thursday in Passion Week is that on which we celebrate the institution of the LORD’S supper. The Epistle for the day has been selected by the Church with a view to this fact. On the following day we commemorate the sufferings, and particularly the death, of our SAVIOUR CHRIST. And, from the mighty and blessed effects of these, in the redemption of man, the day is appropriately called Good Friday. As this day has been kept holy by the Church from the earliest times, so has it also been made a time of the strictest devotion and humiliation.

The general design of this institution is thus set forth by St. Chrysostom: “Why do we fast these forty days? Many heretofore were used to come to the communion indevoutly, and inconsiderately, especially at this time, when CHRIST first gave it to his disciples. Therefore our forefathers, considering the mischiefs arising from such careless approaches, meeting together, appointed forty days for fasting and prayer, and hearing of sermons, and for holy assemblies; that all men in these days being carefully purified by prayer and alms-deeds, and fasting, and watching, and tears, and confession of sins, and other the like exercises, might come, according to their capacity, with a pure conscience, to the holy table.”

But if we inquire more particularly into the reasons of instituting the Lent fast, we shall find them to be these following: First, the apostles’ sorrow for the loss of their Master. For this reason, the ancients observed these two days in which our Saviour lay in the grave, with the greatest strictness. Secondly, the declension of Christian piety from its first and primitive fervour. Thirdly, that the catechumens might prepare themselves for baptism, and the penitents for absolution; Easter being one of the settled times of baptizing the catechumens, and absolving the penitents.

This solemn season of fasting was universally observed by all Christians, though with a great liberty, and a just allowance for men’s infirmities; and this was in a great measure left to their own discretion. If men were in health, and able to bear it, the rule and custom was for them to observe it. On the other hand, bodily infirmity and weakness were always admitted as a just apology for their non-observance of it.

The manner of observing Lent, among those who were piously disposed to observe it, was to abstain from all food till evening. Whence it is natural to conclude, that the pretence of keeping Lent only by a change of diet from flesh to fish, is but a mock fast, and an innovation utterly unknown to the ancients, whose Lent fast was a strict and rigorous abstinence from all food till the evening. Their refreshment was only a supper, and then it was indifferent whether it was flesh, or any other food, provided it was used with sobriety and moderation. But there was no general rule about this matter, as appears from the story which Sozomen tells of Spiridion, bishop of Trimithus in Cyprus: that a stranger once happening to call upon him in Lent, he, having nothing in his house but a piece of pork, ordered that to be dressed and set before him: but the stranger refusing to eat flesh, saying he was a Christian; Spiridion replied, For that very reason thou oughtest not to refuse it; for the word of GOD has pronounced all things clean to them that are clean.

Lent was thought the proper season for exercising more abundantly all sorts of charity. Thus what they spared from their own bodies, by abridging them of a meal, was usually given to the poor. They likewise employed their vacant hours in visiting the sick and imprisoned, in entertaining strangers, and reconciling differences. The imperial laws forbade all prosecution of men in criminal actions, which might bring them to corporal punishment and torture, during this whole season. Lent was a time of more than ordinary strictness and devotion; and therefore, in many of the great churches, they had religious assemblies for prayer and preaching every day. They had also frequent communions at this time, at least on every sabbath and LORD’S day. All public games and stage-plays were prohibited at this season; as also the celebration of all festivals, birthdays, and marriages, as unsuitable to the present occasion.

These were the common rules observed in keeping the Lent fast, when it was come to the length of forty days. But there was one week, called the Hebdomas magna, or the Great Week before Easter, which they observed with a greater strictness and solemnity than all the rest. This is usually called the Passion Week, because it was the week in which our SAVIOUR suffered. (See Passion Week.)

The Christians of the Greek Church observe four Lents. The first commences on the fifteenth of November, or forty days before Christmas. The second is our Lent, which immediately precedes Easter. The third begins the week after Whitsunday, and continues till the festival of St. Peter and St. Paul. The number of days therefore comprised in the Lent is not settled and determined, but they are more or less, according as Whitsunday falls sooner or later. Their fourth Lent commences the first of August, and lasts no longer than till the fifteenth. These Lents are observed with great strictness and austerity. On Saturdays and Sundays they indulge themselves in drinking wine and using oil, which are prohibited on other days.

Lent was first commanded to be observed, in England, by Ercombert, seventh king of Kent (A. D. 640–660). No meat was, formerly, to be eaten in Lent, but by licence, under certain penalties. And butchers were not to kill flesh in Lent, except for victualling of ships, &c.—Compiled from various authorities.

LESSONS, among ecclesiastical writers, are portions of the Holy Scriptures read in churches at the time of Divine service. In the ancient Church, reading the Scriptures was one part of the service of the catechumens, at which all persons were allowed to be present in order to obtain instruction.

The lessons in the unreformed offices are in general very short. Nine lessons are appointed to be read at matins on Sundays, and three on every week-day, besides a chapter, or capitular, at each of the six daily services. But of the nine Sunday lessons, only three are from Scripture, the six others being extracts from homilies or martyrologies. At matins only is there anything like a continuous lesson read. The capitula or lectioner verses at the other services, are each nothing more than one verse (very rarely two short verses) from Scripture, and these are seldom varied. As to the matin lessons, they do not on an average consist of more than three verses each: for though the three lessons are generally in sequence, the sense is interrupted by the interposition between each lesson of a responsory, versicles, and the Gloria Patri, so that edification is hereby effectually hindered, as is remarked in the Preface to our Common Prayer, “Concerning the Service of the Church.”—Jebb.

The Church of England in the appointment of lessons observes two different courses; one for ordinary days, and another for holy-days. On ordinary days she begins the course of her first lessons with the book of Genesis, in the beginning of her civil year, January; and proceeds regularly through the greatest part of the Bible. Isaiah alone is not read in the order in which it stands; our Church reserving the evangelical prophet, in conformity to primitive usage, to be read in the season of Advent. Before Isaiah, and after the other canonical Scriptures, the Church substitutes some apocryphal lessons in the room of the canonical Scripture that has been omitted.

But though the most part of the Bible is read through every year once, yet some chapters of particular books, and three whole books, are left unread for reasons that sufficiently appear.

Of Genesis, (containing 50 chapters,) 10, 11, and 36 are not read; 10 and 36, evidently, because they contain little else than genealogies. The first nine verses of chapter 11, giving an account of a most extraordinary display of the Divine power, the confusion of tongues at Babel, is received into the table of lessons for holy days, viz. Monday in Whitsun week. Of Exodus, (40 chapters,) the first 24 chapters are read, excepting some repetitions and genealogies in the latter part of chapter 6. From chapter 25 to the end of the book, there is little that does not relate to the ark, and other local and temporary particulars, except chapters 32, 33, 34, which are accordingly read. Chapters 35 and 40 are retained in the Scottish calendar. Of Leviticus, (27 chapters,) as it treats chiefly of Jewish sacrifices, and ceremonial observances of clean and unclean beasts and birds, lepers, &c., only 4 chapters are read, viz. the 18, 19, 20, and 26. In the Scottish calendar the 9, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 27 are retained. Of Numbers, (36 chapters,) the first 10 chapters are omitted, which relate to the men of war, the Levites, their services and offerings. Chapters 15, 18, 19, 26, 28, 29, 33, and 34 are also omitted, as containing similar subjects; the Scottish liturgy retains chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 15. All Deuteronomy (34 chapters) is read, except chapter 23, which the Scottish calendar retains, while it rejects chapter 14. In Joshua, (24 chapters,) the history contained from chapter 11 to 22, treating of the destruction of several kings, and the division of the land of Canaan, is not read; but chapters 14, 20, and 22 are retained in the Scottish calendar. The whole of the book of Judges is read, (21 chapters,) and also that of Ruth (4 chapters). So are also the two books of Samuel (the first, “otherwise called the First Book of the Kings,” containing 31 chapters; and the second, “otherwise called the Second Book of the Kings,” containing 24 chapters). Also the two Books of Kings (the first, “commonly called the Third Book of the Kings,” containing 22 chapters, and the second, “commonly called the Fourth Book of the Kings,” containing 25 chapters). Both the Books of Chronicles (the first containing 29 chapters, and the second 36 chapters) are entirely omitted, probably because they consist of the details of facts which are related in the preceding historical books. In the Scottish calendar, 1 Chronicles, chap. 10, is to be read instead of the apocryphal lessons, at morning prayer on November 23; and then from 13 to 22, with 28, 29, and 30. Of 2 Chronicles, 1, 2, 5, 6, &c. to 36, are read, extending to evening prayer, on December 16. Of Ezra, (10 chapters,) chapter 2, being a catalogue of names, is omitted, as are also chapters 8 and 10, partly for the same reason. In the Scottish calendar, chapter 7 is omitted, and 8 and 10 retained. Of Nehemiah, (13 chapters,) 3, 7, 11, and 12, consisting of the names of the builders of the wall, genealogies, &c., are omitted. Of Esther, (10 chapters,) the 10th, containing only three verses, is omitted, probably on that account. In the Scottish calendar chapters 9 and 10 make one lesson; a rare occurrence in that calendar, but frequent in ours. The whole of the Book of Job (consisting of 42 chapters) is read. The Book of Psalms (150) is passed over as being otherwise used. Of Proverbs, (31 chapters,) chapter 30, the Prayer of Agur, &c., is alone omitted; but the Scottish calendar retains it. The book of Ecclesiastes (12 chapters) is read throughout; but the whole of the Song of Solomon (8 chapters) is omitted; as containing mystical descriptions not likely to edify. The Jews did not permit this book to be read by any one under thirty years of age. The whole Book of Isaiah is read, (66 chapters,) but not in its regular place, as before remarked; the 1st chapter being read on the 23rd of November, and the 66th concluding the year. In the Scottish calendar it retains its proper place. The whole of Jeremiah (52 chapters) with the Lamentations of Jeremiah (5 chapters) are read throughout. Of Ezekiel (48 chapters) only 9 are read, viz. 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18, 33, and 34. For the omission of so large a portion may be assigned the reason given for the omission of almost the whole of the Revelation. It consists in a great degree of visions, many of which are very obscure even to the most learned. The Scottish liturgy retains nearly the whole book. The remainder of the Old Testament is read through regularly, viz. Daniel, 12 chapters; Hosea, 14 chapters; Joel, 3 chapters; Amos, 9 chapters; Obadiah, 1 chapter; Jonah, 4 chapters; Micah, 7 chapters; Nahum, 3 chapters; Habakkuk, 3 chapters; Zephaniah, 3 chapters; Haggai, 2 chapters; Zechariah, 14 chapters; Malachi, 4 chapters.

See more fully, as to the subjects of the omitted chapters, Bennet’s Paraphrase, Common Prayer, Appendix; and Shepherd, Common Prayer.

Of the apocryphal lessons, (from ἀπὸ τῆς κρύπτης, removed from the place, or chest where the sacred books were kept; or from ἀποκρυπτω, to conceal or hide; i. e. either as being kept from the people, or as not being canonical; and see fully Hey’s Lectures, and Bingham’s Antiquities, book xiv. ch. 3, sec. 15, 16,) those read and those omitted are as follows:—The whole of Esdras (2 books, of 9 and 16 chapters) is omitted. The whole book of Tobit (14 chapters) is read, except chapter 5. The whole of Judith (16 chapters) is read. The remainder of the Book of Esther (6½ chapters) is passed over. The Wisdom of Solomon (19 chapters) is read throughout. And the whole of the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, (51 chapters,) except the 26, and part of the 25, 30, and 46. The whole of Baruch is read (6 chapters). But the Song of the Three Children, (1 chapter,) a continuation of Daniel iii. 23, is omitted; principally, perhaps, as the greater part of it is the “Benedicite,” &c. The History of Susannah (1 chapter) and that of Bel and the Dragon (1 chapter) are both read. The two Books of Maccabees (16 chapters and 15 chapters) are omitted.

We fix articles of faith, and things necessary to salvation, upon the Scriptures; we do not allow any part of the apocrypha a casting voice in the establishment of any doctrine.—Boys on the Thirty-Nine Articles.

The New Testament is read through three times in the year, for the second lessons; i. e. the Four Gospels and the Acts, for the second lessons in the morning service; and the Epistles (the Revelation of St. John being omitted) for the second lesson in the evening service. The Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Romans, beginning respectively on the 1st day of January—the 3rd and 2nd of May—and the 31st of August—the 1st chapter of St. Luke being, on the first and third reading, divided into two portions, and the 7th chapter of Acts on the third reading. Of the Epistles, the 2nd and 3rd chapters of 1 Timothy and of Titus, are read together; as are also the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of St. John, on the first and second reading, but not on the third. This order is broken into only on four Sundays in the year, i. e. the sixth Sunday in Lent, (or Sunday before Easter,) Easter day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday, but more frequently in holy-days; for all which days proper lessons are appointed.

The Book of the Revelation of St. John is wholly omitted, except on his own peculiar day, when the 1st and 22nd chapters (the first and the last) are read; and on All-saints day, when part of the 19th chapter is read.

When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, we appear to be left in some degree of uncertainty, whether the first lesson together with the service for the holy-day, or that for the Sunday, is to be read. The consequence is, says Archdeacon Sharp, (Visit. ch. 3, Disc. iv.,) that the clergy differ in their practice, and use the service appropriated to that festival, to which, in their private opinion, they give the preference. Some choose to intermix them, using the collects appointed to each, and preferring the first lesson for the Sunday, taken out of a canonical book, to that for the holy-day, if it happens to be appointed in the Apocrypha. Uniformity of practice was certainly intended by the Church, and what now may seem to require the direction of a rubric, or at least the decision of the diocesan, our forefathers, in all probability, thought sufficiently plain. They knew that, prior to the Reformation, (admitting that the practice of England corresponded with that of the Roman and Gallican Churches,) the service for all the holy-days now retained being “Doubles,” generally took place of that appointed for ordinary Sundays, excepting those of Advent and Lent, with Easter day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday. They would, therefore, naturally read the service for the saint’s day, and omit that for the Sunday in general. This continues to be the practice of the Roman Church, and it was the practice of the Gallican Church for more than a century after the æra of our Reformation. In some parts of the late Gallican Church a change took place about the beginning of the present century, and the service for the Sunday was appointed to supersede that for the saint’s day. But in our Church no such alterations have been made by lawful authority. Hence it would appear that the service for the saint’s day, and not that for the Sunday, should be used. And notwithstanding there exists some diversity of opinion on this subject, yet the most general practice seems to be to read the collect, Epistle, and Gospel for the saint’s day; and it is most consonant to that practice to read also the first lesson appropriated to that day. This remark I have heard made by the lord bishop of London.—Shepherd.

When the feast day falls upon a Sunday, it was ordered in the service of Sarum, that the Sunday service should give way to the proper service ordained for the festival, except some peculiar Sunday only, and then the one or the other was transferred to some day of the week following.—Bp. Cosin.

LETTERS OF ORDERS. (See Orders.) The bishop’s certificate of his having ordained a clergyman, either priest or deacon. Churchwardens have the power to demand a sight of the letters of orders of any one offering to assist in the church of which they are the guardians.

LEVITICUS, a canonical book of Scripture, being the third book of the Pentateuch of Moses; thus called because it contains principally the laws and regulations relating to the priests, the Levites, and sacrifices; for which reason the Hebrews call it the priests’ law, because it includes many ordinances concerning sacrifices. The Jews term it likewise Vajicra, because in Hebrew it begins with this word, which signifies, “and he called.”

All the world agree, that Leviticus is a canonical book, and of Divine authority. It, as well as the rest of the Pentateuch, is generally held to be the work of Moses. It contains the history of what passed during the eight days of Aaron’s and his sons’ consecration, which was performed in the year of the world 2514. The laws which were prescribed in it upon other subjects, besides sacrifices, have no other chronological mark, whereby we may be directed to judge at what time they were given. Only four chapters of Leviticus are read in our Church, as remarked in the article on Lessons.

LIBELLATICI. A designation of one kind of the lapsed from Christianity in times of persecution. They are first mentioned in the Decian persecution, and the origin of the name seems to have been this. It is probable that the emperor had decreed that every one who was accused or suspected of being a Christian, should be permitted to purge himself before a magistrate, on which occasion a libellus or certificate was given him, that he had never been a Christian, or that he had abjured the name of CHRIST. Some Christians, who were not so abandoned as to forsake the true faith utterly, were yet weak and dishonest enough to procure those libelli, or certificates, by fraudulent compromise with the magistrate: thus avoiding, as they might hope, the sin of apostasy, and at the same time escaping the sufferings and penalties of convicted Christians. The Church, however, refused to sanction their deceit and cowardice, and they were classed among the lapsed, though not considered quite so culpable as the Sacrificati and Thurificati.

LIBERTINES. A sect of Christian heretics, whose ringleaders were Quintin, a tailor of Picardy, and one Copin, who about 1525 divulged their errors in Holland and Brabant: they maintained that whatsoever was done by men, was done by the SPIRIT OF GOD; and from thence concluded there was no sin, but to those that thought it so, because all came from GOD: they added, that to live without any doubt or scruple, was to return to the state of innocency, and allowed their followers to call themselves either Catholics or Lutherans, according as the company they lighted amongst, were.

LIGHTS ON THE ALTAR. Among the ornaments of the Church enjoined by the laws, and sanctioned by the usage of the Church of England, are two lights upon the altar, to be a symbol to the people that CHRIST, in his two-fold nature, is the very true Light of the world.

The laws of the Church, to which we refer, are as follows:

The rubric immediately preceding “the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer daily throughout the Year” stands thus:—

“And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof at all times of their ministration shall be retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward VI.”

But the rubrics are a part of the laws of the Church, framed by convocation, and ratified by parliament; so that, if it appear that in the second year of King Edward VI. lights were used, as in this rubric is mentioned, no authority short of a convocation for the Church, and for the State an act of parliament, can reverse the authority on which lights are still used upon the altar.

Now, in the injunctions of King Edward VI., set forth in 1547, it is expressly ordered, “that all deans, archdeacons, parsons, vicars, and other ecclesiastical persons, shall suffer, from henceforth, no torches nor candles, tapers, or images of wax, to be set before any image or picture. BUT ONLY TWO LIGHTS UPON THE HIGH ALTAR, BEFORE THE SACRAMENT, WHICH, FOR THE SIGNIFICATION THAT CHRIST IS THE VERY TRUE LIGHT OF THE WORLD, THEY SHALL SUFFER TO REMAIN STILL.”

Some persons who are ignorant of the history of those times, object that this injunction is not to the purpose, because we have no high altar: the truth is, that it is the high altar alone which is left in our churches, all the rest being removed by authority, on account of the idolatrous and corrupt practices which were connected with them.

It is also objected by some, who would be above falling into so great and unhappy a mistake as to suppose that the high altar is removed from our churches, that “the sacrament” before which, on the altar, the lights were to remain, is taken away; for by this term, say they, was meant the consecrated wafer, suspended in a pyx on the altar. If, then, this is taken away, so also must the lights be taken away which were to burn before it. But even allowing that the sacrament, in this sense, is removed, yet the injunction gives another reason for lights, and may surely be allowed to speak its meaning better than those who must, to serve their turn, give to it an idolatrous meaning. The injunction does not say that the lights are to remain before the sacrament as an additional kind of adoration of the host, but for the signification that CHRIST is the very true light of the world. It would be very illiberal to suppose that those who quarrel with the lights deny the truth which they are thus made by authority to symbolize; but it is really strange that they will overlook this sound reason given by the injunction, in order to set forth a questionable reason not given, by way of getting rid of the obnoxious lights.

But the injunction not only thus explains itself, but is interpreted by the custom of the Church to enjoin the use of lights for the signification that CHRIST is the very true light of the world, after the pyx had been removed; for, from the time of Edward, there seems never to have been a time when the lights were not retained in cathedral churches, and wherever we might look for an authoritative interpretation of the law. And to the present day the candles are to be seen on the altar of almost all the cathedrals. In collegiate churches, also, they are usually found; and so also in the chapels royal, and in the chapels of the several colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. The use of these ornaments in Oxford and Cambridge is a matter of special importance, for it serves to give a singular character to the objection which some, even of the clergy, make to the candles on the ground of novelty. Almost every clergyman must again and again have seen on the altar of his college chapel these appropriate and symbolical ornaments; and yet some clergymen, when they wish to condemn them elsewhere, so far forget what they have seen as to call them a novelty.

In how many parochial churches, or chapels of ancient chapelries, or private chapels, in this kingdom, candles on the altar have been retained since the times of the Puritans, we know not; in some they certainly have been: but surely the rule of the Church being express for their use, the custom of those whose ritual and furniture is most carefully maintained under the eye of persons best qualified to judge in such matters, and the guardians of the Church’s constitution, is sufficient, at the very least, to serve as a witness to the rule, and to make it clear that it is still the rule, the acknowledged rule, of the Church of England.

Thus, then, the custom of the Church is with those who use, and not with those who omit the use of, lights, although custom is an argument brought confidently against them. And here also we may note that all the commentators on the Prayer Book, whose judgment we would look to with respect, agree in declaring that it is the law and the custom of the Church of England to retain the two lights on the altar.

That their use has been, however, too much neglected, cannot be denied; but, in fact, the disuse of lights, where they have been disused, when it is traced to its real cause, tells almost as much in their favour as the continued use of them where they are retained. It was not our reformers who removed them from the altar; we have already proved that they deliberately commanded their use: it was the Puritans, who took their origin in the days of Queen Elizabeth, from the refugees in Holland and Geneva during the persecutions of the bloody Queen Mary. There they learned a less Scriptural ritual, which, working on the saturnine dispositions of some, led eventually to the greatest extremes of fanaticism, impiety, and crime. As some controversy has arisen on this subject, as stated in former editions of this work, the following observations are added on a point of very minor importance, but still one on which correct information is interesting.

The ancient Church appears to have used lights, not only at those services which were performed at late hours, after sunset, or, as some have supposed, when the Christians assembled in caves of the earth, and in the catacombs at Rome, during the times of public persecution; but in token of public rejoicing, at festivals and other solemn occasions, during the day-time. St. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of lights as being carried at the funerals of pious Christians, probably of higher rank, as it occurs in his mention of the honours which were paid after death to the emperor Constantius.—Orat. iv. p. 118, ed. Morell. He also speaks of them as used at baptisms.—Orat. xl. p. 672. At the baptism of Theodosius the Younger, a little later than this, an early writer says that the crowd of noble persons bearing tapers made the earth appear as if spangled with stars.—Marc. Diacon. Vit. Porphyr. c. 7. It seems also to have been a practice at Church festivals, and solemn days kept in memory of saints and martyrs.—S. Paulin. Nol. Carm. vi. 35–37. Greg. Nazianzen. Orat. xxxix. and xlii.

Theodoret speaks of “the burning of incense and lights” as accompanying “the mystical sacrifice of the holy table.”—Quæst. in Exod. xxv.–xxviii. Opp. vol. i. p. 164, ed. Schulze. And St. Jerome, more distinctly, “In all the churches of the East, when the Gospel is about to be read, lights are kindled, though the sun may be shining bright, not to put the darkness to flight, but to show a sign of rejoicing.”—Contr. Vigilantium, tom. i. p. 394, ed. Vallars. It seems not at all improbable that Archbishop Theodore, coming as he did from Tarsus, may have introduced this custom of the Eastern Church among the Anglo-Saxons.

The mention of lamps and candlesticks among church furniture occurs in very early times. The passage referred to in a former edition of this work, may be found in Baluze, Miscell. tom. i. p. 22. The date of the acts there recited is said to be the year in which Diocletian was consul for the eighth time, and Maximian for the seventh, i. e. probably A. D. 296, a few years before the breaking out of the tenth persecution. The church furniture there said to be taken from the Christians of Cirta is set down as follows: “Two golden chalices, six silver chalices, six silver flagons or ewers, a silver round vessel, (cucumellum,) seven silver lamps, two candlestands, (cereofala,) seven short candlesticks with their lights, eleven brazen lamps with the chains on which they were hung,” and a quantity of male and female articles of clothing, which appear to have been kept in the church-stores for distribution to the poor. It seems not improbable that the two tall candlestands here mentioned, and the seven short candlesticks, each contained lights used at the reading of the Gospel; the former would be placed on the ground at a little distance in front of the holy table, the latter on the table itself. It was done, as Theodoret seems to show, in imitation of the solemnities in the temple service. The lamps would be for lighting the church after sunset.

Many records are found of the use of candlesticks and lamps in our national Church from the time of Bede to the Norman Conquest, particularly a remarkable list of church books and furniture, which is to be found in the will of Leofric, bishop of Exeter, in the time of Edward the Confessor.—For authorities see Bishop Cosin, Wheatly, Bishop Mant.

Though it might admit of a question, whether the very ancient and (at one time) universal custom of burning lights during the Communion Office, was ever abrogated by the permanent laws of our Church, still that custom, now plainly obsolete, is very different from retaining candlesticks on the altar, with tapers to be lighted when they are required. Queen Elizabeth, though opposed to superstition, yet had a crucifix, and “two candlesticks, and two tapers burning on the altar” of her chapel.—Strype, Annals Ref. 1559, p. 175; 1560, p. 200, fol. ed. And though objections were made both by the archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Cox, still it would appear that these were rather directed to the use of the crucifix; and nothing is said of the illegality of candles. For their use on the holy table, we have the continuous sanction of cathedrals, royal chapels, and colleges, down to the time of the Rebellion; and it could be, and has been, very amply shown that the replacing these articles of ecclesiastical furniture at the Restoration was very frequent. As an instance out of many, Parry, bishop of Ossory, in 1677, left by will a pair of large silver candlesticks gilt to Christ Church, Dublin. Bishop Cosin, speaking of the manner in which the communion (not ought to be, but) “is celebrated in our churches,” says it “is after this manner: first of all, it is enjoined, that the table or altar should be spread over with a clean linen cloth, or other decent covering; upon which the Holy Bible, the Common Prayer Book, the plate and chalice, are to be placed; two wax candles are to be set upon it.”—Nicholls on the Common Prayer, Add. Notes, p. 34. It is difficult to believe that, had this been unlawful, the practice should have been so largely sanctioned by the heads of the Church, especially by those who revised the Prayer Book.

After all, are candlesticks and lights mere ornaments? They are something more; though ornamental in themselves, and in the position they occupy, they are for use, and are properly church furniture; and therefore no more within the contemplation of the rubric respecting ornaments, than the stalls, desks, eagle, communion rails, organ, or any other part of the moveable or permanent furniture of the church. There appears no sound reason, why, when the church must of necessity be lit, the ancient custom of lighting the chancel by means of two candlesticks on the holy table, should not be kept up according to ancient and unbroken usage. But if no part of the ecclesiastical furniture is to stand in the church, except when actually in use, this rule would lead to moveable pulpits, organs, &c. And, indeed, would be in a great measure impracticable.—Stephens’s Common Prayer Book.

In Christ Church cathedral in Dublin, within memory, two silver gilt candlesticks with large wax candles in them always stood on the holy table on Sundays and holy-days, and were lit when required at the evening service, then celebrated at a late hour.—Jebb.

In the Hiereugia Anglicana there are a great many detailed proofs adduced of the use of lights and candlesticks on the holy table in the English Church, from the Reformation downwards. The authorities are all given.

LINCOLN. (See Use.)

LITANY. The term “Litany” is used by ancient writers in many different senses. At first it seems to have been applied as a general appellation for all prayers and supplications, whether public or private. In the fourth century it was given more especially to those solemn offices which were formed with processions of the clergy and people. Public supplications and prayers to GOD, on occasions of especial urgency, were certainly prevalent in the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries. (See Rogation Days.) These supplications were called Litanies in the Eastern Church, from whence the name passed to the West. Here they were known as Rogations or supplications, until the name of Litany became more prevalent than any other. The Church of England appears to have received the stated Rogation or Litany days of the Gallican Church at an early period; and, from that time to the present, she has reckoned them among her days of fasting. Formerly, in this Church, there were processions on all these days.

The Litany of the Church of England is not an exact transcript of any ancient form, though composed of materials of very ancient date. It differs essentially from the Romish Litanies by containing no invocations to angels and departed saints. Our invocations are made to the three persons of the sacred TRINITY, and to them alone, while the office of Mediator and Intercessor is throughout ascribed only to our LORD JESUS CHRIST.

In the original arrangement, the Litany formed a distinct service, not used at the time of the other services. But by later usage it has been united with the morning prayer, though still retaining its separate place in the Prayer Book. Formerly there was a rubric, requiring that, “after morning prayer, the people being called together by the ringing of a bell, and assembled in the church, the English Litany shall be said after the accustomed manner;” and it was also required by the 15th canon, that “every householder dwelling within half a mile of the church should come or send some one at the least of his household, fit to join with the minister in prayers.” The ordinary arrangement was to hold morning prayer at eight o’clock, the Litany and the Communion at ten. This practice is still observed in some of the English churches; and Bishop White, in his “Memoirs of the American Church,” remarks that when he was in England, being on a visit to the archbishop of Canterbury, he observed that on Wednesdays he, with the other bishops, retired to the chapel before dinner; and on accompanying them he found that their object was to use the Litany, in compliance with the original custom.

The Litany is usually considered as embracing four main divisions, viz. the INVOCATIONS, DEPRECATIONS, INTERCESSIONS, and SUPPLICATIONS.—See Nicholls on the Common Prayer.

The word Litany is used by the most ancient Greek writers for “an earnest supplication to the gods, made in time of adverse fortune:” and in the same sense it is used in the Christian Church for “a supplication and common intercession to God, when his wrath lies upon us.” Such a kind of supplication was the fifty-first Psalm, which begins with “Have mercy upon me,” &c., and may be called David’s Litany. Such was that Litany of GOD’S appointing (Joel ii. 17); where, in a general assembly, the priests were to say with tears, “Spare thy people, O LORD,” &c. And such was that Litany of our SAVIOUR, (Luke xxii. 42,) which kneeling he often repeated with strong crying and tears (Heb. v. 7); and St. Paul reckons up “supplications” among the kinds of Christian offices, which he enjoins shall be daily used (1 Tim. ii. 1); which supplications are generally expounded Litanies for removal of some great evil. As for the form in which they are now made, namely, in short requests by the priests, to which the people all answer, St. Chrysostom saith it is derived from the primitive age. And not only the Western, but the Eastern Church also, have ever since retained this way of praying. This was the form of the Christians’ prayers in Tertullian’s time, on the days of their stations, Wednesdays and Fridays, by which he tells us they removed drought. Thus, in St. Cyprian’s time, they requested God for deliverance from enemies, for obtaining rain, and for removing or moderating his judgments. And St. Ambrose hath left a form of Litany, which bears his name, agreeing in many things with this of ours. For when miraculous gifts ceased, they began to write down divers of those primitive forms, which were the original of our modern office: and about the year 400 these Litanies began to be used in procession, the people walking barefoot, and saying them with great devotion. And Mamertus, bishop of Vienna, did collect a Litany to be so used, by which his country was delivered from dreadful calamities, in the year 460. And soon after, Sidonius, bishop of Arverne, [Clermont in Auvergne,] upon the Gothic invasion, made use of the same office; and about the year 500, [511,] the Council of Orleans enjoined they should be used at one certain time of the year, in this public way of procession; and in the next century, Gregory the Great did, out of all the Litanies extant, compose that famous sevenfold Litany, by which Rome was delivered from a grievous mortality, which hath been a pattern to all Western Churches ever since; and ours comes nearer to it than that in the present Roman missal, wherein later popes had put in the invocation of saints, which our reformers have justly expunged. But by the way we may note, that the use of Litanies in procession about the fields, came up but in the time of Theodosius in the East, and in the days of Mamertus of Vienna, and Honoratus of Marseilles, namely, in the year 460, in the West; and it was later councils which did enjoin the use of it in Rogation Week; but the forms of earnest supplications were far more ancient and truly primitive. As for our own Litany, it is now enjoined on Wednesdays and Fridays, the two ancient fasting days of the Christians, in which they had of old more solemn prayers; and on Sundays, when there is the fullest assembly: and no Church in the world hath so complete a form, as the curious and comprehensive method of it will declare.—Dean Comber.

Epiphanius referreth this order to the apostles. The Jews in their synagogues observed for their special days of assembling together those that dwelt in villages, Mondays and Thursdays besides the sabbath. The precedent of the Jews directed the Church not to do less than they did. They made choice of Mondays and Thursdays, in regard of some great calamities that befell their nation upon those days; and that they might not be three days together without doing some public service to GOD. The Church had the like reason of Wednesdays and Fridays, whereon our SAVIOUR was betrayed and crucified; the moral reason of once in three days, with a convenient distance from Sunday, concurring. The observance of these days for public assemblies was universal, and the practice of the oldest times.—Bp. Cosin.

Next to the Morning and Evening Service in our Prayer Book stands the Litany, or more earnest supplication for averting GOD’S judgments, and procuring his mercy. This earnestness, it was thought, would be best excited and expressed by the people’s interposing frequently to repeat with their own mouths the solemn form of “beseeching” GOD to “deliver” and to “hear” them: in which however the minister is understood to join equally; as the congregation are in every particular specified by him. Such Litanies have been used in the Church at least 1400 years. And they were appointed first for Wednesdays and Fridays, these being appropriated to penitence and humiliation, and for other fasts; but not long after for Sundays also, there being then the largest congregation, and most solemn worship: and our Litany is further directed to be used at such other times as the ordinary shall think proper. Originally it was intended for a distinct service, to come after the Morning Prayer, as the rubric of our liturgy still directs, and before the office for the Communion, at a proper distance of time from each: of which custom a few churches preserve still, or did lately, some remains. But, in the rest, convenience or inclination hath prevailed to join them all three together, excepting that in some places there is a psalm or anthem between the first and second; and between the second and third, almost everywhere: besides that the latter part of the Morning Prayer is, most of it, ordered to be omitted, when the Litany is said with it. But still by this close conjunction many things may appear improper repetitions, which, if the offices were separate, would not. However, as it is, they who use extempore prayers in public have small right to reproach us on this head. For doth it not frequently happen that, during one assembly of theirs, different ministers praying successively, or the same minister in several prayers, or perhaps in one only, shall fall into as many repetitions, as are in the different parts of our liturgy, or more? But, be that as it will, to these last all persons would easily be reconciled, if an interval were placed, in their minds at least, between the services; and they would consider each, when it begins, as a new and independent one, just as if it were a fresh time of meeting together.

The Litany of our Church is not quite the same with any other, but differs very little from those of the Lutherans in Germany and Denmark. It is larger than the Greek, but shorter than the Roman, which is half filled up with the names of saints invoked; whereas we invoke, first, the three persons of the holy TRINITY, separately and jointly; then, in a more particular manner, our Redeemer and Mediator, “to whom all power is given in heaven and earth.” (Matt. xxviii. 18.)—Abp. Secker..

The posture in which the minister is to repeat the Litany, is not prescribed in any present rubric, except that, as it is now a part of the Morning Service for the days above mentioned, it is included in the rubric at the end of the suffrages after the second LORD’S Prayer, which orders “all to kneel” in that place, after which there is no direction for “standing.” And the injunctions of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth both appoint, that “the priests, with others of the choir, shall kneel in the midst of the church, and sing or say plainly and distinctly the Litany, which is set forth in English, with all the suffrages following, to the intent the people may hear and answer,” &c. As to the posture of the people, nothing needs to be said in relation to that, because, whenever the priest kneels, they are always to do the same.—Wheatly.

If the Litany be, as certainly it is, our most fervent address to GOD, fit is it that it should be made in the most significant, that is, in the lowest, posture of supplication.—L’Estrange.

The Litany hath been lately brought into that absolute perfection, both for matter and form, as not any Church besides can show the like, so complete and full;... so that needs must they be upbraided, either with error, or somewhat worse, whom in all parts this principal and excellent prayer doth not fully satisfy.—Bishop Cosin.

The Litanies in the Roman and the English unreformed Church were said on Easter eve, St. Mark’s day, the three Rogation days, and Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. The Litany of the Church of England is used on Wednesdays and Fridays, as was the Lenten practice of the West, and its Sunday use is in conformity to the prayers resembling it, which are found at the beginning of the directed communion offices.

In many choirs now, formerly in all, (as would appear from direct notice,) the Litany was sung, since the Reformation, by two ministers, (sometimes deacons,) at other times by laymen, at the faldstool in the centre of the choir. The singing by two laymen is a manifest abuse, reprehended by most of our ritualists; and seems to have arisen from a misconstruction of the ancient rules, which directed it to be sung by two of the choir: but the choir included priests and deacons, and clergy in orders, though of the second form.

As to the latter part of the Litany however, the rubric, added at the last review, is confirmatory of the ancient practice of the Church, which assigned the performance of this part to the priest, or superior minister. This is observed in many choirs. And at Oxford and Cambridge, on those days when the Litany is performed before the university, the vice-chancellor, if in orders, reads the LORD’S Prayer, and the remaining part.—Jebb.

The Latin Litany is performed on certain days before the university at Oxford and Cambridge. Its musical arrangement, as retained at Oxford, contains the most solemn harmonies known to the Church.

LITERÆ FORMATÆ. According to the rules and practice of the ancient Church, no Christian could travel without taking letters of credence with him from his own bishop, if he meant to communicate with the Church in a foreign country. These letters were of several kinds, according to the different occasions, or quality of the person who carried them. They are generally reduced to three kinds, commendatory, communicatory, and dimissory. The first were such as were granted only to persons of quality, or to persons whose reputation had been called in question, or to the clergy who had occasion to travel in foreign countries. The second sort were granted to all who were in peace and communion of the Church, whence they were also called pacifical and ecclesiastical, and sometimes canonical. The third sort were given only to the clergy, when they were removing from one church to settle in another, and they were to testify that the bearer had the bishop’s leave to depart, whence they were called dimissory. All these went under the general name of formed letters, because they were written in a particular form, with particular marks and characters, whereby they might be distinguished from counterfeits.—Bingham.

LITURGIUM. (Gr.) The name of a book, in the Greek Church, containing the three liturgies of St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and that of the Presanctified, said to be composed by Pope Gregory, called Dialogus.

In celebrating these three liturgies, the Greeks observe the following order. The liturgy of St. Basil, as appears by the introduction, is sung over ten times in the year; namely, on the eve of Christmas day, on the feast of St. Basil, on the eve of the feast of Lights, on the Sundays of Lent, excepting Palm Sunday, on the festival of the Virgin, and on the Great Sabbath. The liturgy of the Presanctified is repeated every day in Lent, the forementioned days excepted. The rest of the year is appropriated to the liturgy of St. Chrysostom. (See Liturgy.)

LITURGY. (See Common Prayer, Formulary, and Public Worship.) From the Greek word λειτουργία, a public act or duty. This term was originally used to denote the service or form employed in the celebration of the eucharist. In the Eastern Churches, that service was frequently called the “Divine” or “mystical” liturgy; while in the West, though the term “liturgy” was used, yet the name of “missa” was more common. At the present day, the word is employed to designate the ordinary prescribed service of the Church, either with or without the Communion Office. (See article on Formularies, where the general question of forms of prayer is treated.) The history of liturgies may thus be briefly stated.

When the Christians were no longer in fear of the violence and persecutions of the heathens, and in that age when the Church came to be settled, (that is, from the time of Constantine to that of St. Augustine,) we find there was a liturgy in the Eastern Church.

The first Cyril of Jerusalem mentions some parts of an ancient liturgy used in that place, both in respect to the form of baptism, and the celebration of the eucharist.

St. Basil composed a liturgy himself, which is to be seen in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in his book De SPIRITU SANCTO; and he tells us how the service of the Church was directed by rules and rubrics.

In St. Chrysostom’s time, Omnes unam eandemque precem concipiēbant, and this was not only a public prayer, but a public form; for in that collection of his works set forth by Sir Henry Saville, we find a liturgy of his own making, which was translated out of the Syriac by Masius, and used generally throughout all the Greek churches.

Now, if it should be granted that premeditated prayers are not required by GOD in our private addresses to him, yet it is plain from those instances already mentioned, such prayers were always held necessary in the public services of the Church; and this further appears by the form prescribed by our SAVIOUR himself, who, when we pray, commanded us to say, “Our FATHER,” &c.; and St. Matthew tells us, that he went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

The Apostolical Canons mention some set forms of prayer, both before and after the communion; and St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, before mentioned, not only composed set forms themselves, but they describe set liturgies as having been composed by St. Mark and St. James; and the adversaries to such forms have no other plausible pretence to deny these authorities than by alleging these liturgies to be supposititious, which is an answer that may serve upon any occasion to evade an argument, which cannot otherwise be answered.

St. Ambrose and Prosper tell us, there were set forms of prayers used in the Church in their time; and they give the reason for it, ne in diversum intellectum nostro evagemur arbitrio: and St. Hilary hath this expression on the 66th Psalm, viz. Let those without the Church hear the voice of the people praying within. Now the word praying of the people must signify something more than the bare suffrage Amen; it must import their joint concurrence in the actual performance of the whole duty, which cannot be done but where the prayers are in a set form.

And these are the prayers which Isidore tells us were used in the ancient congregations of the Christians; and it is most certain that such were in use in that great apostate Julian’s time; for Nazianzen informs us, that he endeavoured to establish the heathen ceremonies in imitation of the Christian services, by appointing, not only certain times, but set forms of prayer.

It is true, that many of the ancient liturgies were destroyed by the persecuting heathens, yet some fragments of them still remain in the writings of the Fathers, and are such as are used in our Church at this day; as the words before and after the consecration of the sacrament are to be found in St. Ambrose: the question demanded of the godfathers in the sacrament of baptism, viz. “Whether they do, in the name of the infant, renounce the devil and all his works, and the pomps and vanities of this wicked world,” are to be found in the same St. Ambrose, and in Tertullian; the Gloria Patri, of which more hereafter, is in Sozomen; and the supplement to that doxology, viz. “As it was in the beginning,” &c., is to be found in Irenæus.

In the sacrament of the LORD’S supper, the words pronounced by the priest, viz. “Lift up your hearts,” and the answer, “We lift them up; it is meet and right for us so to do,” are to be found in St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom; and so are these words, viz. “The LORD be with you, And with thy spirit;” and, lastly, Isidore mentions the usual conclusion of all our collects, viz. “Through JESUS CHRIST our LORD,” &c.

In the Western Church, St. Cyprian tells us there was a liturgy, viz. in the Church of Africa, which is usually accounted amongst the Churches of the West; and we find some pieces of such liturgies in St. Augustine; and not only approved by him, but by all the Fathers of that Church assembled in a synod, as it appears by the canons which they made, and which are mentioned both by Balsamon and Zonaras, viz. that prayers be performed by all, and not any to be said in public, but only such as have been composed by wise and understanding men, lest anything should be vented against the faith, either through ignorance or want of meditation.

Tertullian mentions a liturgy used in Rome, which was probably begun by St. Peter, for it bears his name; and Platina tells us, that several additions were made to it by St. Basil in his time; and in some things this author is very particular, as that Celestine added the Introitus, Gregory added the Kyrie Eleison, Telesphorus the Gloria in Excelsis, Sixtus the First added “Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD of Hosts,” which is called the Trisagion; Gelasius the Collects, St. Jerome the Epistles and Gospels.

The Gloria Patri, which has been mentioned before, was not only appointed by the Council of Nice to encounter the Arian heresy, but it was used long before that council, even by the apostles themselves, who were commanded by their Master to baptize in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.

This is found in the writings of all those ancient fathers who lived near the time of the apostles, as in Clemens, who was their scholar, and in Dionysius of Alexandria; but the following words, which make up the whole form of the doxology, viz. “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end,” were not brought into the Church till the Arian heresy began to spread, and this was about the time of the Council of Nice.

It is true this began first in the Eastern Church, and from thence it came to the West, where Pope Damasus [A. D. 366–384] was the first who appointed it to be used at the end of the psalms, which made up the greatest part of the public liturgy of that Church. The Churches of France, Spain, and England had the like liturgies, though not exactly the same.

Although we have no certain account what rites or forms were used here among the Britons, yet Bede, in his ecclesiastical history, tells us, that as soon as the gospel was planted here, there was a liturgy formed out of the rituals of the most flourishing Churches then in the world. For Pope Gregory advised St. Augustine not to follow the Roman office strictly, but to take what he should approve in any Church, and prescribe the same to the English, which he did; and this liturgy of St. Augustine continued for some ages, till Osmond, bishop of Sarum, [A. D. 1078,] finding that new prayers and offices abounded everywhere, reduced them all to one form, and from thence it was called secundum usum Sarum.

The liturgy of the Irish Church, according to Mr. Palmer, was, during the first ages, probably the same as that of Britain. The ancient Irish liturgy still extant differs considerably from the Roman. It seems, he adds, that in later times there were great varieties in the mode of celebrating Divine worship in Ireland, which were mentioned by Gillebert, bishop of Limerick, A. D. 1090. And which appear to have been removed by the Synod of Arles, A. D. 1152, when the Roman rites were established.

By the seventh statute of the Synod, or rather Council, of Cashel, 1172, the regulations of the Irish Church were assimilated to those of England. The use of Sarum was adopted; though it has been supposed that the Irish use lingered for a considerable time in parts of the more distant provinces.

As to the liturgy now used amongst us, it was reformed at the time of the Reformation: for the offices of the Church before that time consisting in missals, breviaries, psalteries, graduals, and pontificals, and every religious order having peculiar rites observed among themselves, it was thought proper that the worship of GOD should be brought under a set form; and moreover, that nothing should be changed merely out of an affectation of novelty, or because it had been used in times of Popery, so as it had been practised in the primitive times. (See next article.)

LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (See Common Prayer and Formulary.) This book is entitled The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland.

Before the Reformation, our liturgy was only in Latin, being a collection of prayers, made up partly of some ancient forms used in the primitive Church, and partly of some others of later original. But when the nation, in King Henry VIII.’s time, was disposed to a reformation, it was thought necessary both to have the service in the English or vulgar tongue, and to correct and amend the liturgy, by purging it of those gross corruptions which had gradually crept into it.

And, first, the convocation appointed a committee, A. D. 1537, to compose a book, which was entitled “The godly and pious Institution of a Christian Man, containing a declaration of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ave Maria, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Seven Sacraments, &c.” This book was again published in 1539, with corrections and alterations. In 1543 appeared another Primer, in substance the same as the former, under the title of “A necessary doctrine and Erudition for any Chrysten Man.” In the same year, a committee of bishops and other divines was appointed by King Henry VIII., to reform the rituals and offices of the Church; and the next year the king and clergy ordered the prayers for processions and litanies to be put into English, and to be publicly used. The English Litany accordingly, not much differing from that now in use, was publicly adopted in 1544. Afterwards, in 1545, came out the King’s Primer, containing the whole Morning and Evening Prayer in English, not very different from what is in our present Common Prayer. Thus far the reformation of our liturgy was carried in the reign of Henry VIII.

In the year 1547, the first of King Edward VI., the convocation unanimously declared, that the communion ought to be administered in both kinds; whereupon an act of parliament was made, ordering it to be administered. Then a committee of bishops and other learned divines was appointed, to compose An uniform order of communion, according to the rules of Scripture, and the use of the primitive Church. The committee accordingly met in Windsor Castle, and drew up such a form. This order of the communion was appointed for general use, by royal proclamation, in 1548. This made way for a new commission, empowering the same persons to finish the whole liturgy, by drawing up public offices for Sundays and holy-days, for baptism, confirmation, matrimony, burial, and other special occasions.

The committee appointed to compose this liturgy were—

1. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury.

2. Thomas Goodrich, bishop of Ely.

3. Henry Holbech, bishop of Lincoln.

4. George Day, bishop of Chichester.

5. John Skip, bishop of Hereford.

6. Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Westminster.

7. Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, and afterwards of London.

8. Dr. William May, dean of St. Paul’s.

9. Dr. John Taylor, dean, afterwards bishop, of Lincoln.

10. Dr. Simon Haynes, dean of Exeter, and master of Queen’s College, Cambridge.

11. Dr. John Redman, prebendary of Westminster, and master of Trinity College, Cambridge.

12. Dr. Richard Cox, dean of Christ Church, Oxon., and Westminster; afterwards bishop of Ely.

13. Mr. Thomas Robertson, archdeacon of Leicester; afterwards dean of Durham.

Our excellent liturgy, thus compiled, was revised and approved by the archbishops, bishops, and clergy of both provinces of Canterbury and York, and then confirmed by the king and three estates in parliament, A. D. 1548, second and third of Edward VI. ch. 1. In 1549, an act passed for appointing six bishops and six other learned men, to draw up a form for consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons. Heylin conjectures that these were the same as those above mentioned, with the exception of Bishop Day, who had refused to subscribe the liturgy.

But, about the end of the year 1550, exceptions were taken against some parts of this book, and Archbishop Cranmer proposed a new review. The principal alterations occasioned by this second review were the addition of the Sentences, Exhortation, Confession, and Absolution, at the beginning of the morning and evening services, which in the first Common Prayer Book began with the LORD’S Prayer; the addition of the Commandments at the beginning of the Communion Office; the removing of some rites and ceremonies retained in the former book, such as the use of oil in confirmation, the unction of the sick, prayers for departed souls, the invocation of the HOLY GHOST at the consecration of the eucharist, and the prayer of oblation that used to follow it; the omitting the rubric that ordered water to be mixed with the wine, with several other less material variations, The habits, likewise, which were prescribed in the former book were in this laid aside; and, lastly, a rubric was added at the end of the Communion Office, to explain the reason of kneeling at the sacrament. The liturgy, thus revised and altered, was again confirmed by parliament, A. D. 1551, with this declaration, that the alterations made in it proceeded from curiosity rather that any worthy cause. But both this and the former act in 1548 were repealed in the first year of Queen Mary.

Upon the accession of Queen Elizabeth, the act of repeal was set aside, and several learned divines appointed to take another review of King Edward’s liturgies. These (according to Camden and Strype) were—

1. Dr. Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.

2. Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely; one of the original compilers.

3. Dr. William May; one of the original compilers.

4. Dr. William Bill, afterwards dean of Westminster.

5. Dr. James Pilkington, afterwards bishop of Durham.

6. Sir Thomas Smith.

7. Mr. David Whitehead.

8. Mr. Edmund Grindal, afterwards bishop of London, and archbishop of York and Canterbury.

To these were afterwards added,

9. Dr. Edwyn Sandys, afterwards bishop of Worcester.

10. Mr. Edmund Guest, afterwards bishop of Rochester and Salisbury.

It was debated, at first, which of the two books of King Edward should be received. At length the second was pitched upon, and confirmed by parliament, which commanded it to be used, with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and none other or otherwise.

The alteration in the Litany here mentioned was the leaving out the deprecation, “from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities,” and adding these words to the petition for the sovereign, “strengthen in the true worshipping of thee, in righteousness and holiness of life.” The two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament, were, “The body of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,” &c., and “The blood of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,” &c., which were taken out of King Edward’s First Book; whereas, in the Second Book, these sentences were left out, and in the room of them were used, “Take, eat, or drink, this,” with what follows; but now, in Queen Elizabeth’s book, both these forms were united.

There are some other variations in this book from the Second of King Edward. The first rubric, concerning the situation of the chancel, and the proper place of reading Divine service, was altered; the habits, enjoined by the First Book of King Edward, and forbidden by the Second, were now restored; at the end of the Litany was added a prayer for the sovereign, and another for the clergy. Lastly, the rubric, that was added at the end of the Communion Office, in King Edward’s Second Book, against our SAVIOUR’S corporeal presence in the sacrament, was left out in this. This was done, that the aforesaid notion might remain as a speculative opinion, not determined; it being the queen’s design to unite the nation, as near as possible, in one faith.

In this state the liturgy continued, without further alteration, till the first year of King James I.; when a conference was held at Hampton Court between that prince, with Archbishop Whitgift and other bishops and divines, on the one side, and Dr. Reynolds, with some other Puritans, on the other: the result of which was, the adding some forms of thanksgiving at the end of the Litany, and an addition to the catechism in relation to the sacraments. Likewise, in the rubric at the beginning of the Office for Private Baptism, the words “lawful minister” were inserted to prevent midwives and laymen from presuming to baptize, with one or two more small alterations.

But, immediately after the Restoration, King Charles II., at the request of several of the Presbyterian ministers, issued out a commission for a new review of the liturgy, empowering twelve of the bishops and twelve Presbyterian divines to make such reasonable and necessary alterations as they should jointly agree upon. Nine coadjutors were added on each side, to supply the place of any of the twelve principal who should happen to be absent. Their names are these:

On the Episcopalian side.

Principals.

1. Dr. Frewen, archbishop of York.

2. Dr. Sheldon, bishop of London.

3. Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham.

4. Dr. Warner, bishop of Rochester.

5. Dr. King, bishop of Chichester.

6. Dr. Henchman, bishop of Salisbury.

7. Dr. Morley, bishop of Worcester.

8. Dr. Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln.

9. Dr. Laney, bishop of Peterborough.

10. Dr. Walton, bishop of Chester.

11. Dr. Stern, bishop of Carlisle.

12. Dr. Gauden, bishop of Exeter.

Coadjutors.

1. Dr. John Erle, dean of Westminster, afterwards bishop of Worcester.

2. Dr. Peter Heylyn, prebendary of Westminster.

3. Dr. John Hackett, archdeacon of Bedford, afterwards bishop of Lichfield.

4. Dr. John Barwick, successively dean of Durham and St. Paul’s.

5. Dr. Peter Gunning, successively master of Corpus and St. John’s, Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Chichester.

6. Dr. John Pearson, successively master of Jesus and Trinity College, Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Chester.

7. Dr. Pierce.

8. Dr. Anthony Sparrow, archdeacon of Sudbury, afterwards bishop of Norwich.

9. Mr. Hubert Thorndike, prebendary of Westminster.

On the Presbyterian side.

Principals.

1. Dr. Reynolds.

2. Dr. Tuckney.

3. Dr. Conant.

4. Dr. Spurstow.

5. Dr. Wallis.

6. Dr. Manton.

7. Dr. Calamy.

8. Mr. Baxter.

9. Mr. Jackson.

10. Mr. Case.

11. Mr. Clark.

12. Mr. Newcomen.

Coadjutors.

1. Dr. Horton.

2. Dr. Jacob.

3. Mr. Bates.

4. Mr. Rawlinson.

5. Mr. Cooper.

6. Dr. Lightfoot.

7. Dr. Collins.

8. Dr. Woodbridge.

9. Mr. Drake.

These commissioners had several meetings at the Savoy, but to very little purpose; the Presbyterians reviving all the old scruples of the Puritans against the liturgy, and adding several new ones of their own. Baxter had the assurance to affirm, that our liturgy was too bad to be mended, and confidently proposed to compose a new one, which he had the insolence to offer to the bishops. Upon this the conference broke up, without anything being done, except that some particular alterations were proposed by the episcopal divines; which, the May following, were considered and agreed to by the whole clergy in convocation. The principal of these alterations were, that several lessons in the calendar were changed for others more proper for the days; the prayers for particular occasions were disjoined from the Litany, and the two prayers to be used in the Ember weeks, the prayer for the parliament, that for all conditions of men, and the general thanksgiving, were added. Several of the collects were altered; the Epistles and Gospels were taken out of the last translation of the Bible, being read before according to the old translation. The Office for Baptism of those of Riper Years, and the Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea, were added. In a word, the whole liturgy was then brought to the state in which it now stands, and was unanimously subscribed by both houses of convocation of both provinces, on Friday, Dec. 20, 1661. And being brought to the House of Lords the March following, both Houses very readily passed an act for its establishment; and the Earl of Clarendon, then lord chancellor, was ordered to return the thanks of the lords to the bishops and clergy, for their care and industry shown in the review of it.

The English liturgy was adopted in Ireland shortly after the Reformation in England. In 1551, Edward VI. issued an injunction to Sir Anthony St. Leger, the lord deputy there, to have the English Common Prayer Book read in the Irish churches. The lord deputy accordingly summoned the whole clergy, and after opposition from the primate and some of the bishops, a proclamation was issued, and the English Prayer Book publicly used in Christ Church, on Easter Sunday that year: having been printed in Dublin, with these words on the title page, After the use of the Church of England. No order is extant for the adoption of King Edward’s Second Book; nor does it appear that any act was passed in Queen Mary’s reign prohibiting the use of the First. In 1560, an Act of Uniformity, copied from the English act, was passed, enjoining the Book of Common Prayer as then revised in England: this act was passed with the consent of seventeen out of nineteen prelates, that is, of the spiritual estate, as the Irish Church was then constituted. In 1662 the English revised liturgy was referred for consideration to the Irish bishops; on their approval it was passed by convocation; and nearly four years after, the Act of Uniformity was enacted by parliament.—See Stephens’s Introduction to the Irish Book of Common Prayer.

The peculiar excellencies of our Church of England service are to be traced to a variety of causes. One prominent cause is obvious and important; namely, that our reformers most closely adhered to the model of primitive devotion.... To approach, as near as possible, to the Church of the apostles, and to that of the old Catholic bishops and fathers, so long as they deemed it pure and unadulterated, was the paramount direction of their tastes, their judgments, and their hearts.... In the formation of our liturgy, it has been happily, and doubtless providentially, guarded alike from excess and deficiency. It possesses a peculiar temperament, equally remote from all extremes, and harmoniously blending all excellencies: it is not superstitious, it is not fanatical, it is not cold and formal, it is not rapturous and violent; but it unites, perhaps beyond any other human composition, sublime truth and pure spirit; the calmest wisdom and the most energetic devotion. Under various trying circumstances it has been so signally and repeatedly preserved, that we cannot doubt it is continued to us for some greater purpose than it has hitherto effected. While the very memory of many contending parties, that threatened its destruction, has nearly passed away, it remains uninjured and unaltered; giving us to conjecture, that it is reserved for still nobler, more extended, and more enduring triumphs.—Bishop Jebb.

As for the English liturgy’s symbolizing with the Popish Missal, as some have odiously and falsely calumniated, it doth no more than our communion, or LORD’S supper celebrated in England, doth with the mass at Rome; or our doctrine about the eucharist doth with theirs about transubstantiation; or our humble veneration of our GOD and SAVIOUR in that mystery doth with their strange gesticulations and superstitions. In all which particulars, how much the Church of England differed both in doctrine and devotion from that of Rome, no man that is intelligent and honest can either deny or dissemble.—Gauden’s Tears of the Church of England.

The Nonconformists say, the liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the mass-book; but it followeth not thence, that either it is, or was esteemed by them, a devised or false worship; for many things contained in the mass-book itself are good and holy. A pearl may be found upon a dunghill. We cannot more credit the man of sin than to say, that everything in the mass-book is devilish and antichristian, for then it would be antichristian to pray unto GOD in the mediation of JESUS CHRIST—to read the Scriptures—to profess many fundamental truths necessary to salvation. Our service might be picked and culled out of the mass-book, and yet be free from all fault and tincture, from all show and appearance of evil; though the mass-book itself was fraught with all manner of abominations. It is more proper to say the mass was added to our Common Prayer, than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the mass-book; for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in the liturgies of the Church long before the mass was heard of in the world.”—Stillingfleet on Separation.

A man would wonder how it is possible for those, who understand wherein the iniquity of Popery consists, to make this objection against the Book of Common Prayer.

The Papists have corrupted Christianity by adding many unwarrantable particulars; whereas the Protestants have rejected those unwarrantable particulars, and retained pure Christianity. Wherefore, as the Protestant religion is very good, although it is in some sense the same with that of the Papists; so also may an English reformed Prayer Book be very good, although it be in some sense the same with the Popish liturgies. Upon supposition that the matter of fact were never so certainly true, and that the Book of Common Prayer were taken word for word out of the Popish liturgies, yet this is no just objection against it. For as the Popish religion is a mixture of things good and bad; so their liturgies are of the same kind. They contain many excellent prayers addressed to the true and only GOD; which every good Christian cannot but heartily approve of; though at the same time there are other prayers addressed to angels and saints, and containing unsound matter. So that it is possible for us to make a choice of admirable devotions out of the Popish liturgies, if we take care to separate the good from the bad; if we reject their superstitions, and retain what is truly Christian.—Bennet’s Paraph. Com. Prayer, Appendix I.

If it may be concluded that our liturgy is not good because it is comprehended in the mass-book, or in the breviary, we must, by the same reason, infer, that our doctrine is unsound, because it is all to be found in the councils, and in the writings of the doctors of the Romish Church. But so the LORD’S Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and many sentences of Scripture which are used in that missal, or in that breviary, as also the doctrine of the TRINITY, of the incarnation, passion, &c., which are comprehended in the councils, would all of them be but superstitions and heresies. Again, to say that our liturgy is naught, because it hath been extracted out of the mass-book or breviary, if that were true, yet it is just such an argument, as if men had hit Luther and Calvin in the teeth with this, that they were superstitious, Popish heretics, because they came the one out of a convent from among friars, and the other out of a cathedral from the midst of prebendaries, who were all infected with Popish heresies and superstitions. And would they not have had great cause to complain, if upon this pretence they had been always suspected, rejected, or condemned? Therefore, as they were reputed sound and orthodox in that respect, after their doctrine had been examined, and nothing was found therein of the leaven of Rome, although they came out of her communion, let our liturgy have but the same right done unto it; let it be examined, and that, if they please, with exactness and the greatest rigour; but in consequence let it be also declared innocent, if no harm be found therein, though that should prove true, that it had been wholly taken out of the mass-book, or breviary, which will never be found to be so. For I dare say that among one hundred of them who so confidently affirm it, there is not one that ever saw the missal or the breviary, or but knows so much as what the books are. And if we should put those books into their hands, that they might produce some proofs of this rash affirmation, which is so frequent in their mouths, they would be infinitely puzzled. They would not find, either in the missal, or in the breviary, that wise economy which our liturgy useth in the reading of the Holy Scriptures, nor those excellent passages which set before our eyes the greatness of our guilt towards GOD, and of his mercy in pardoning the same unto us; which passages are placed in the very beginning of it. They would not find there that godly exhortation to repentance, and to the confession of our sins in the presence of GOD, which followeth immediately the reading of those passages. Nor yet the confession of sins, nor the absolution which followeth the same, for there is not one line of all this in the mass-book. The ten commandments are not to be found there, nor that prayer which is made at the end of every commandment which the minister hath pronounced; nor the Commination, nor several prayers of the Litany, or of the other forms. But in it they will meet with the LORD’S Prayer, the Creeds, the songs of Zachary, Simeon, of the Blessed Virgin, and of some others, which are word for word in the Scripture, or are extracted out of it, and are grounded upon the same, and were in use in the primitive Christian Church before ever the mass was hatched. Therefore it is manifest that to say that our liturgy is either the mass, or taken out of it, is a mere slander, proceeding from malice, or ignorance, or both.—Durel’s Government of the Reformed Churches—Sermon on the English Liturgy.

LOGOS. The WORD; from the Greek ὁ Λόγος. A title given to our blessed LORD and SAVIOUR; so designated not only because the FATHER first created and still governs all things by him, but because, as men discover their sentiments and designs to one another, by the intervention of words, speech, or discourse, so GOD by his SON discovers his gracious designs to men. All the various manifestations of himself, whether in the works of creation, providence, or redemption, all the revelations he has been pleased to give of his will, are conveyed to us through him; and therefore he is, by way of eminence, called the WORD of GOD.—Tomline.

The word appears to be used as an abstract for the concrete, as St. John employs Light for enlightener, Life for giver of life; so that the expression means speaker, or interpreter. So, (John i. 18,) “No man hath seen GOD at any time; the Only Begotten, who is in the bosom of the FATHER, he hath declared him.” In the first verse he is described as the WORD which “was with GOD in the beginning, and was GOD.” (See Jesus and Lord.)

As to the reason of this name or title of the Word, given by the evangelist to our blessed SAVIOUR; he seems to have done it in compliance with the common way of speaking among the Jews, who frequently call the Messias by the name of the WORD of the LORD; of which I might give many instances; but there is one very remarkable, in the Targum of Jonathan, which renders the words of the psalmist, which the Jews acknowledged to be spoken of the Messias, viz. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, &c., thus, “The Lord said unto his Word,” &c. And so likewise Philo the Jew calls him “by whom GOD made the world, the WORD of GOD, and the SON of GOD:” and Plato probably had the same notion from the Jews, which made Amelius, the Platonist, when he read the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, to say, “This barbarian agrees with Plato, ranking the WORD in the order of principles;” meaning, that he made the WORD the principle or efficient cause of the world, as Plato also hath done. And this title of the WORD was so famously known to be given to the MESSIAS, that even the enemies of Christianity took notice of it. Julian the apostate calls CHRIST by this name: and Mahomet in his Alcoran gives this name to JESUS the SON of Mary. But St. John had probably no reference to Plato, any otherwise than as the Gnostics, against whom he wrote, made use of several of Philo’s words and notions. So that in all probability St. John gives our blessed SAVIOUR this title with regard to the Jews more especially, who anciently called MESSIAS by this name.—Archbishop Tillotson.

See the very learned article on the word Λόγος (under its 16th head) in Rose’s edition of Parkhurst’s Greek Lexicon.

LOLLARDS. A religious sect, which arose in Germany about the beginning of the fourteenth century; so called, as many writers have imagined, from Walter Lollard, who began to dogmatize in 1315, and was burnt at Cologne; though others think that Lollard was no surname, but merely a term of reproach applied to all heretics, who concealed the poison of error under the appearance of piety. In England, the followers of Wickliff were called, by way of reproach, Lollards, from the supposition that there was some affinity between some of their tenets: though others are of opinion that the English Lollards came from Germany. (See Wickliffites.)

LOMBARDICKS. Flat tombstones, generally of granite or alabaster, coffin-shaped, with a slightly raised cross in the centre, and a legend running round it.

LORD, OUR LORD. The LORD JESUS CHRIST is such to us, as He is,

1. Our SAVIOUR.

I will place salvation in Zion. (Isa. xlvi. 13.) Behold thy salvation cometh. (Isa. lxii. 11.) I speak in righteousness, mighty to save. (Isa. lxiii. 1.) Thou shalt call his name JESUS, for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matt. i. 21.) The FATHER sent the SON to be the Saviour of the world. (1 John iv. 14.) To be a Prince and a Saviour. (Acts v. 31.) The author of eternal salvation. (Heb. v. 9.) GOD our Saviour. (Tit. ii. 10.) The great GOD, and even our Saviour JESUS CHRIST. (Tit. ii. 13.) GOD hath not appointed us to wrath; but to obtain salvation by our LORD CHRIST JESUS. (1 Thess. v. 9.) That the world through him might be saved. (John iii. 17.) This is a faithful saying, &c., that JESUS CHRIST came into the world to save sinners. (1 Tim. i. 15.) Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts iv. 12. See also Matt. i. 21; xviii. 11; Luke ii. 11; John iii. 17; iv. 42; xii. 47; Acts xv. 11; Rom. v. 9; x. 9; Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20; 1 Thess. i. 10; Heb. ii. 3; vii. 25; Tit. iii. 5, 6.)

2. Our Sacrifice for sin.

The Spirit—testified beforehand the sufferings of CHRIST. (1 Pet. i. 11.) Behold the Lamb of GOD, which taketh away (beareth) the sin of the world. (John i. 29.) The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev. xiii. 8.) CHRIST our passover is sacrificed (slain) for us. (1 Cor. v. 7.) CHRIST died for our sins according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. xv. 3.) His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree. (1 Pet. ii. 24.) And hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to GOD. (Eph. v. 2.) An offering for sin. (Isa. liii. 10.) Once offered to bear the sins of many. (Heb. ix. 28.) Thus it behoved CHRIST to suffer. (Luke xxiv. 46.) The just for the unjust, that he might bring us to GOD. (1 Pet. iii. 18.) Hereby perceive we the love of GOD, because he laid down his life for us. (1 John iii. 16. See also Isa. liii. 6–12; Dan. ix. 26; Luke xxiv. 26; John iii. 14, 15; xv. 13; Acts iii. 18; xxvi. 23; Rom. iv. 25; 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. ix. 26; x. 5; 1 John i. 7; ii. 2.)

3. Our Redeemer.

I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. (Job xix. 25.) The redeemer shall come to Zion. (Isa. lix. 20.) CHRIST hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. (Gal. iii. 13.) Redeemed with the precious blood of CHRIST. (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) Having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb. ix. 12. See also Job xxxiii. 23, 24; Matt. xxvi. 28; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; Rev. v. 9.)

4. Our Mediator.

There is one Mediator between GOD and man, the man CHRIST JESUS. (1 Tim. ii. 5.) He is the Mediator of a new—a better—covenant. (Heb. viii. 6; xii. 24.) The Mediator of the New Testament. (Heb. ix. 15.) No man cometh to the FATHER but by me. (John xiv. 6. See also Job ix. 2; John xvi. 23; Heb. vii. 25; xi. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 5.)

5. Our Advocate.

We have an advocate with the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the righteous. (1 John ii. 1. See also Heb. ix. 24.)

6. Our Intercessor.

He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no Intercessor; therefore his arm brought salvation. (Isa. lix. 16.) He made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa. liii. 12.) He ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb. vii. 25. See also Rom. viii. 34.)

7. Our Propitiation.

He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John ii. 2.) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood. (Rom. iii. 25.)

8. Our Ransom.

He is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom. (Job xxxiii. 24.) The Son of man came—to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt. xx. 28.) A ransom for all to be testified in due time. (1 Tim. ii. 6.)

9. Our Righteousness.

Their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. (Isa. liv. 17.) The righteousness of GOD which is in faith by JESUS CHRIST to all. (Rom. iii. 22.) The LORD our righteousness. (Jer. xxiii. 6. See also Isa. lxi. 10; Dan. ix. 24; 1 John ii. 1, 29.)

10. Our Wisdom.

CHRIST JESUS, who of GOD is made unto us wisdom. (1 Cor. i. 17, 30. See also Isa. ix. 6; Eph. i. 17; iii. 4.)

11. Our Sanctification.

JESUS also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. (Heb. xiii. 12.) We are sanctified through the offering of the body of JESUS CHRIST. (Heb. x. 10. See also Mal. iii. 3; Matt. iii. 12; John xvii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 2; vi. 11; Eph. v. 25, 26; Heb. x. 14; 1 John i. 7.)

(Of him are ye in CHRIST JESUS, who of GOD is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, 1 Cor. i. 30.)

12. Our LORD and our GOD.

John xx. 28.

II. As He is,

1. The MESSIAH.

Messiah the prince. (Dan. ix. 25, 26.) We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the CHRIST (the anointed). (John i. 41.) Anointed—to preach good tidings unto the meek. (Isa. lxi. 1.) To preach the gospel to the poor, &c. (Luke iv. 18.)

2. The Head of the Church.

Christ is the Head of the Church. (Eph. v. 23.) GOD—gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body. (Eph. i. 22, 23. See also Ps. cxviii. 22; Matt. ii. 6; xxi. 42; John x. 14; Acts iv. 11; Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 15; xii. 27; Eph. ii. 20; iv. 12–15; v. 29; Col. i. 18, 24; Heb. iii. 1; xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 6, 25.)

3. The Power of GOD.

Unto them which are called—CHRIST the power of GOD. (1 Cor. i. 24.) Declared to be the SON of GOD with power. (Rom. i. 4.) The brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power. (Heb. i. 3.) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily. (Col. ii. 9. See also Matt. ix. 6; xi. 27; xxviii. 18; Luke iv. 32; Acts xx. 32; Eph. i. 20, 21; Col. ii. 10; 2 Tim. i. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 22; Rev. xi. 15.)

4. The Truth.

I am the truth. (John xiv. 6.) Grace and truth came by JESUS CHRIST,—the only begotten of the FATHER, full of grace and truth. (John i. 17, 14.) The Amen, the faithful and true witness. (Rev. iii. 14. See also Isa. xlii. 3; John viii. 14, 32; xviii. 37; 2 Cor. xi. 10; Eph. iv. 21; 1 John v. 20; Rev. xix. 11; xxii. 6.)

5. The KING of kings, and LORD of lords.

Rev. xvii. 14; xix. 16. And see also Ps. lxxxix. 27; Dan. vii. 14, 27; Zech. xiv. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rev. i. 5; xi. 15.

6. The LORD of Glory.

1 Cor. ii. 8; Jas. ii. 1.

7. The LORD of All.

JESUS CHRIST, he is LORD of all. (Acts x. 36.) To this end CHRIST both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be LORD both of the dead and living. (Rom. xiv. 9.) And that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD. (Phil. ii. 11. See also Josh. v. 14; Micah v. 2; John xiii. 13; xvi. 15; Acts ii. 36; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. viii. 6; xii. 5; xv. 47; 2 Thess. i. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Col. iii. 24; Heb. i. 2; ii. 8; xiii. 20; Rev. i. 8; v. 5.)

III. Through Him we have,

1. Grace. (John i. 16; Acts xv. 11; Rom. i. 5; iii. 24; v. 2, 15–21; xvi. 20, and similar passages. 1 Cor. i. 4; xv. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 9; xii. 9; Eph. i. 7; ii. 7; iv. 7; vi. 24; 1 Tim. i. 2, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9; 2 Pet. iii. 18.)

2. Power. (1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 9; Eph. vi. 8; Phil. iv. 13; Col. i. 29; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 9, 12; Heb. ii. 14, 18; xiii. 21.)

3. Faith. (Matt. ix. 2; John vi. 45; Acts xxvi. 18; iii. 16; Rom. iii. 22, 25; v. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 5; Gal. ii. 20; iii. 22; Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29; iii. 9; Col. ii. 5, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 13; iv. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 6; 1 John v. 14.)

4. Forgiveness of sins. (Zech. xiii. 1; Matt. ix. 6; Luke xxiv. 47; John i. 29; Acts ii. 38; v. 31; x. 43; xiii. 38; Rom. viii. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 10; Eph. i. 7; iv. 32; Heb. ix. 26; 1 John ii. 12; Rev. i. 5.)

5. Justification. (Isa. liii. 11; Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iii. 24, 26; iv. 25; v. 1, 9, 16, 18; viii. 1; x. 4; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. ii. 16, 21; iii. 8, 11, 24; Phil. iii. 9; Tit. iii. 7.)

6. Patience. (Ps. xxxvii. 7, with 2 Thess. iii. 5; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Heb. vi. 12; x. 36; xii. 1; James v. 7, 8; Rev. i. 9; ii. 2, 3, 19; iii. 10; xiv. 12.)

7. Light. (Isa. xlix. 6; Luke ii. 32; John i. 9; iii. 19; viii. 12; ix. 5; xii. 35, 36, 46; 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6; Eph. v. 14; 1 John ii. 8; Rev. xxi. 23.)

8. Life. (John i. 4; iii. 36; v. 21, 24; vi. 27, 33, 40; x. 10, 28; xi. 25; xiv. 6; xx. 31; Acts iii. 15; Rom. v. 15–21; vi. 8, 11, 23; viii. 2; xiv. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor. iv. 10; Phil. i. 21; Col. iii. 4; 1 Thess. v. 10; 2 Tim. i. 1, 10; 1 John i. 1; ii. 25; iv. 9; v. 11, 12, 20; Jude, ver. 21.)

9. Peace. (Isa. ix. 6; Ezek. xxxiv. 25; Zech. ix. 10; Luke i. 79; ii. 14; xix. 38; John xiv. 27; xvi. 33; Acts x. 36; Rom. i. 7, and the similar passages, and v. 1; x. 15; Eph. ii. 14–17; vi. 15; Phil. iv. 7; Col. i. 20; 1 Pet. v. 14.)

10. Blessing. (Gal. iii. 14; Eph. i. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 22.)

11. All we need. (Ps. xxiii. 1; John xv. 7, 16; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Phil. iv. 19.)

12. Joy and consolation. (Luke ii. 25; John xvi. 20; Rom. v. 11; xv. 13; 2 Cor. i. 5; Phil. ii. 1; iii. 1; iv. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 16.)

13. Victory. (Rom. viii. 37; 1 Cor. xv. 57; 2 Cor. ii. 14; 1 John iv. 4; v. 4, 5; Rev. xii. 11.)

14. The kingdom of heaven. (Luke xxii. 28, 29; John xiv. 3; Eph. ii. 6; v. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; iv. 8; 2 Pet. i. 11; Rev. iii. 21; xxi. 22.)

IV. Through Him we are,

1. Reconciled to GOD. (Dan. ix. 24; John xi. 52; Rom. v. 1, 10; xi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19; Eph. i. 10; ii. 13, 16; iii. 6; Col. i. 20, 21; Heb. ii. 17; 1 John iv. 10.)

2. Made sons of GOD. (Isa. lvi. 5; Luke xii. 32; John i. 12; Gal. iii. 26; iv. 5–7; Eph. i. 5; 1 John iii. 1.)

V. Through Him we must,

1. Offer thanks. (Rom. i. 8; vii. 25; Eph. i. 6; v. 20; Col. iii. 17; 1 Thess. v. 18; Heb. xiii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 5.)

2. Give glory to GOD. (John xiv. 13; Rom. xvi. 27; 2 Cor. viii. 23; Eph. iii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11.)

3. Be accepted. (Eph. i. 6.)

VI. In Him we must,

1. Have faith. (Isa. xxviii. 16; John i. 12; iii. 16; vi. 29, 47; xx. 31; Acts xvi. 31; xviii. 8; xx. 21; xxiv. 24; Rom. ix. 33; x. 9; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29; 2 Tim. i. 13; 1 John ii. 22; iii. 23; v. 1, 10.)

2. Hope. (Acts xxviii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 19; Col. i. 27; 1 Tim. i. 1.)

3. Trust. (2 Cor. i. 20; iii. 4; xi. 10; Eph. i. 12.)

4. Die. (Rom. vii. 4; viii. 10, 36; 1 Cor. iv. 9; ix. 15; xv. 31; 2 Cor. i. 5; iv. 10, 11; vi. 9; Phil. ii. 30.)

5. Become new creatures. (2 Cor. iv. 16; v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.)

6. Have our conversation. (John xv. 16, 22; Rom. vi. 4; viii. 9; xiii. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 23; 2 Cor. iv. 10; xiii. 5; Gal. i. 10; ii. 17; v. 24; Eph. iii. 19; iv. 15; vi. 6; Phil. i. 10, 11, 27; ii. 5, 21; iii. 18; Col. i. 10; ii. 6; iii. 1, 16; 1 Thess. ii. 11, 12; iv. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 1–3, 19; Tit. ii. 10; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 16; Rev. vii. 14.)

VII. In His name,

1. We are exhorted. (1 Cor. i. 10; iii. 1; v. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2; 1 Tim. v. 21; vi. 13; 2 Tim. iv. 1.)

2. We must speak. (Rom. ix. 1, 2; 2 Cor. ii. 17; xii. 19; 1 Tim. ii. 7.)

3. We must ask. (Matt. xviii. 19, 20; John xiv. 13; xv. 7; xvi. 23, 24; 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9; 1 John v. 14, 15.)

VIII. We must,

1. Acknowledge His power. (Isa. lxiii. 1–6; John v. 23; Rom. xiv. 11; Phil. ii. 10, 11; Rev. v. 13.)

2. Confess His name. (Matt. x. 32; Luke xii. 8, 9; Acts viii. 37; Phil. ii. 11; 1 John iv. 15; 2 John, ver. 7; Rev. ii. 13; iii. 8.)

3. And in His name do all things. (Eph. vi. 7; Col. iii. 17, 23.)

IX. In Him we are united.

Rom. viii. 17, 39; xii. 5; xvi. 7, 9–13; 1 Cor. i. 13; iii. 1; vi. 15; vii. 22; x. 17; xii. 13, 20, 27; 2 Cor. xii. 2; Gal. i. 22; iii. 27, 28; Eph. i. 10, 22, 23; ii. 14, 16, 21; iii. 6; iv. 12, 16, 20, 25; v. 30; Col. i. 18, 24; 1 Thess. iv. 16; Heb. iii. 14; 1 John i. 3; v. 20.

X. For Him we must suffer.

Matt. v. 11, 12; xvi. 24; Acts xiv. 22; Rom. v. 3; viii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 9; 2 Cor. i. 5; iv. 10; vi. 10; vii. 4; xii. 10; Gal. ii. 20; Phil. i. 12; iii. 8; Col i. 24; 1 Thess. iii. 3; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12; iii. 12; Heb. x. 34; xi. 26; xiii. 13; James i. 2; 1 Pet. i. 6; ii. 21; iv. 13, 14, 16; Rev. i. 9; ii. 3.

XI. He judgeth all things.

John v. 22; Acts xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 16; xiv. 10; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 5; Jude, ver. 14, 15; Rev. xx. 12.

LORD’S DAY. The first day of the week is so designated in the Christian Church;—it is the κυριακὴ ἡμέρα of St. John and Ignatius (see Schleusner in voc.);—and as Friday is appointed as the weekly fast, in commemoration of our LORD’S crucifixion, so is Sunday the weekly feast, in commemoration of his resurrection.

GOD has commanded us to dedicate at least a seventh portion of our time to him. We read in Genesis, (ii. 3,) that GOD blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Here we are told that the seventh day, or as we shall presently show, one day in seven, was not only blessed, but sanctified by GOD. Now, by sanctifying a thing or person, we understand their being separated or set apart for a religious purpose. When therefore the ALMIGHTY is said to sanctify a portion of time, it cannot be in reference to himself, to whom all days, times, and seasons are alike—equally pure, equally holy,—but in reference to man; and the sanctifying a day must, consequently, imply a command to man to keep it holy. That one day in seven was from the beginning dedicated to the service of the ALMIGHTY, will receive confirmation by reference to the chapter which immediately follows that from which the quotation just made is taken. For there we are told that Cain and his brother Abel made a sacrifice,—not “in the process of time” merely,—but, as it is given in the margin of our Bibles, “at the end of the days.” The latter reading we prefer, because, while the former conveys but an indistinct idea to the mind, the latter is confirmed by one of the oldest versions of Scripture, called the Septuagint. But if to this expression,—“at the end of the days,” we attach any meaning at all, it must surely signify at the end of the six days of labour, that is, on the seventh day, previously sanctified by the ALMIGHTY. When, in addition to this, we take into consideration the evil character of Cain, it seems less probable that he should have come voluntarily forward, with a grateful heart, to worship his Maker, than that he carelessly complied with a custom to which he had been habituated from his childhood: he came to sacrifice, as some come now to Church, after each interval of six days, from habit rather than piety.

We have also another corroborating evidence in favour of this interpretation of our text. Holy Job is generally supposed to have lived before the time of Moses; and in the Book of Job we find mention made of “the day on which the sons of GOD came to present themselves unto the LORD,” which we may fairly conclude alludes to the sabbath. It is remarkable, also, that we find some traces of this institution among the heathen, for two of their oldest poets, Homer and Hesiod, speak of the seventh as being a sacred day. It is probable that in the same manner in which they obtained the notion of a Deity, namely, by tradition from father to son of a revelation made to Adam and Noah, they arrived at a knowledge which gradually died away, of this sacredness of the seventh day.

But when we remember that this rule was given to Adam, and was, in consequence, binding, not upon a chosen few, but upon all his descendants, it does not appear likely that any one particular day was designated, but merely that a general rule was laid down that one day in seven should be dedicated to direct offices of religious duties; for it would have been impossible for men, scattered, as they were soon to be, over all the face of the earth, to observe, all of them, the same day, since the beginning of every day, and of course of the seventh, must have been eighteen hours later in some parts of the world than in Eden or Palestine, or wherever we suppose the sabbath to have been first established. A law for a single nation may be particular; a law for all mankind must be general: the principle must be laid down and enforced; the particulars must depend upon circumstances. Besides, although it is easy to demonstrate that the Israelites ought to have set apart for their religious duties one day in seven, previously to the ceremonial institution of the sabbath on Mount Sinai, yet it is equally clear that they did not keep the same day before the delivery of the law, as they did afterwards. For although in the 16th chapter of Exodus, previously to the delivery of the law, the sabbath is spoken of as an institution well known to the Israelites, yet as to the particular day on which it was kept there is no mention made. It was not till AFTERWARDS that one certain particular day was appointed, (namely, that on which they came out of Egypt,) for the two-fold purpose, that as men they might commemorate the creation, and as Israelites celebrate their deliverance. Now we may reasonably infer that they would not have set out from Egypt on the sabbath day, and that consequently their sabbath was not observed at the same time before, as it was after, its re-institution on Mount Sinai.

That we, then, together with every human being, are bound to dedicate one day in seven to religious duties, is evident, because the commandment was given, not to Moses, but to Adam; not to the Israelites, but to all the descendants of Eve. But the observance of that one particular day sanctified to the Jews, not only to celebrate the universal love of GOD in the creation of the world, but his special loving-kindness to their individual nation, is not any longer obligatory upon us, because it formed part of the ceremonial law. It remains, therefore, now to inquire on what authority it is that we observe the first day of the week in preference to any other, or, in other words, by whom the festival of the LORD’S day was instituted.

That we in the present age keep the first day of the week as a holy-day dedicated to the service of our MAKER and REDEEMER is certain; the question is, whether this was an arbitrary innovation, introduced when our Church was corrupted by Popery, and retained at its reformation as a useful institution, or whether it has higher claims to our respect. It is not a Popish innovation or novelty, because we find it mentioned by our great divines in those primitive and purer ages of our Church, before Popery or any of its doctrines were invented or dreamt of. For, in examining such writers as lived in the age of the apostles, or those immediately succeeding, we find them alluding to the fact, (and their testimony is confirmed by contemporary and infidel historians,) that Christians were always accustomed to meet on the first day of the week for the performance of their religious exercises. If we examine them more minutely, we find that, as the Jewish sabbath was fixed to a certain day, on account of their deliverance from Pharaoh, so the Christians kept this festival in grateful acknowledgment of the mercies of the REDEEMER, who, as on this day, accomplished the victory over the grave, by rising from the dead. If we attend them yet further, we find those who, too honest to deceive, lived too near the apostolic age to be deceived, asserting that this festival was instituted by the apostles; and if by the apostles, who acted under the immediate direction and influence of the HOLY GHOST, then of course we may conclude that the institution was Divine.

Having thus far shown what the tradition is, let us now consult our Bibles, to ascertain whether it be confirmed or contradicted, for without this it will be of no avail. Now, that the gospel does not expressly command the religious observance of the first day in the week must be conceded. The apostles and Jewish Christians do not appear to have neglected the Jewish sabbath. As long as the temple continued standing, they kept the last day of the week as a fast; the first, as a festival. That the apostles did keep the first day of the week as a festival, is quite clear. St. Paul, we are told, preached at Troas, “on the first day of the week.” When all the disciples had, as they were in the habit of doing, “come together to break bread,” that is, to receive the holy eucharist, which ought always to form a part of the public service, he gave orders also to the Corinthians to make a collection for the saints at Jerusalem, when, according to their custom, they assembled together on the first day of the week, which day is expressly called by St. John the LORD’S day. (Rev. i. 10.) But if the testimony of man is great, the testimony of GOD is greater. Their observance of this festival was sanctioned by our LORD himself, by his repeated appearance among his apostles on that day; after his resurrection it is sanctioned by the HOLY GHOST, by the miraculous effusion of the SPIRIT upon the apostles when they were together on the day of Pentecost, which must, that year, have fallen upon the first day of the week. Now, take these facts of Scripture (and others may be found) and compare them with the universal tradition to which we have alluded, and surely we must agree with one of the most celebrated divines who have appeared in modern times, when speaking of the most important doctrine of our religion, that of the Trinity, “if what appears probably to be taught in Scripture appears certainly to have been taught in the primitive and Catholic Church, such probability, so strengthened, carries with it the force of demonstration.”

We may perceive from this, that our practice of keeping holy the first day of the week is sanctioned by the apostles. What is our authority, if we except the high authority of the Church, for not observing the last day of the week also, it were hard to say. But if the authority of the Church is to be received, we must remember that what she teaches is, that we are to dedicate at least a seventh portion of our time to GOD. But this we do not do, unless every moment of the Sunday is so devoted. And yet who can do this? Therefore the Church also requires of us a portion of Friday, and a portion of the saints’ days.

LORD’S PRAYER. The prayer which our blessed LORD himself hath taught us. It is to be used as a model for all our devotions, our blessed LORD saying, (Matt. vi. 9,) “After this manner pray ye;” and it is to be used in express words whenever we pray, our LORD commanding us, (Luke xi. 2,) “When ye pray, say, Our FATHER,” &c. Therefore the Church of CHRIST hath used from the first to begin and end her services with the LORD’S Prayer. This being the foundation upon which all other prayers should be built, therefore, saith Tertullian, we begin with it, that so, the right foundation being laid, we may justly proceed to our ensuing requests. And it being the perfection of all prayer, therefore, saith St. Augustine, we conclude our prayers with it. Let no man, therefore, quarrel with the Church’s frequent use of the LORD’S Prayer, for the Catholic Church ever did the same. Besides, as St. Cyprian observes, if we would hope to have our prayers accepted of the FATHER only for his SON’S sake, why should we not hope to have them most speedily accepted when they are offered up in his SON’S own words?

It is objected by some persons in the present day, (for the objection was unknown to the primitive Church,) that our SAVIOUR did not give this as an express form of prayer, but only as a pattern, or direction. In support of this they quote the passage, Matt. vi. 9, &c., in which it is introduced, “After this manner pray ye;” not laying so much stress on the similar passage, Luke xi. 2, &c., where our Saviour expressly says, “When ye pray, say.” On this it may be remarked, that where there are two texts on any particular doctrine, or practice, the one worded ambiguously, as in that of St. Matthew, “After this manner,” &c., (or as the translation would more properly be, “Pray thus,” and the ambiguity would then almost vanish,) and the other clearly expressed; as in that of St. Luke, “When ye pray, say,” it is a settled and a natural rule of interpretation, that the doubtful words should be explained by those which are clear. Now he who uses these very words as a form, acts in evident obedience to both the letter and the spirit of the one precept, and yet not in contradiction to the other. But he who rejects this as a form, though he may act in obedience to the spirit of the one, certainly acts in disobedience to the letter, if not to the spirit of the other, “When ye pray, say,” &c.

Had not our LORD given this as a settled form of prayer, he would have been very likely to have dilated somewhat on the various subjects it embraces—of adoration, prayer, and praise: and perhaps have introduced illustrations according to his custom; and would not improbably have said, “When ye pray, address yourselves in the first place to GOD who is your heavenly FATHER, but forget not his sovereignty, and ask him to give you,” &c. But instead of this he dictates, in both cases, a few comprehensive sentences, convenient for all persons, and under all circumstances, and of which the eloquent Tertullian thus rapturously exclaims, “In this compendium of few words, how many declarations of prophets, evangelists, and apostles are contained! How many discourses, parables, examples, precepts of our LORD! How many duties towards GOD are briefly expressed! Honour to the FATHER, faith, profession in his name, offering of obedience in his will, expression of hope in his kingdom; petition for the necessaries of life in the bread, confession of sins in the supplication, solicitation against temptations in the asking of protection. What wonder! GOD alone could teach how he chose to be prayed to.” St. Cyprian says, that “it is so copious in spiritual virtue, that there is nothing omitted in all our prayers and petitions which is not comprehended in this epitome of heavenly doctrine.”

It is necessary to be understood that the transactions mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Luke were not one and the same, but occurred at different times, and on different occasions. Our LORD first introduced this form of prayer uncalled for, in the sermon on the mount, at the commencement of his commission, comprehending a doxology, or concluding tribute of glory and praise. But he gave it for the second time, after an interval of about two years and a half, as is clear from the various events that occurred, and that are enumerated in the chapters (Luke vii.–xi.) which form the greater part of the acts of his ministry.

It is not impossible that the disciples themselves did, on the first occasion, regard it as conveying a general idea only in what terms GOD should be addressed, and therefore not having used it as a common prayer, the circumstance of our LORD’S “praying in a certain place” induced one of his disciples, “when he ceased,” to say, “LORD, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples;” alluding to a well-known custom of the Hebrew masters, which it thus appears John had adopted, of teaching their scholars a particular form of words in their addresses to GOD, varying, no doubt, according to their particular sentiments. Our LORD’S disciples here, therefore, ask of him a precise form, and that form he gives them in compliance with their wishes, not only for their use, but for the use of all who should embrace the profession of Christianity—“When ye pray, say,” &c.

It is supposed by some, and there seems much reason for the idea, that the disciple who thus asked was a new convert, and not present at the delivery of the sermon on the mount, and that our LORD repeated the form which he had then before given. Indeed, if that which was first given had not been considered as a settled form, or a groundwork for it, it would appear extraordinary that it should be repeated in so nearly the same words, and precisely in the same order of sentences. Grotius remarks on this subject, that so averse was our LORD, the LORD of the Church, (tam longe abfuit ipse Dominus ecclesiæ,) to unnecessary innovation, and an affectation of novelty, that he “who had not the SPIRIT by measure,” but “in whom were all the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” selected the words and phrases in a great degree from forms of prayer then well known among the Jew; as in his doctrines he also made use of proverbs and sayings well understood in that age.

The difference between the form given in the sermon on the mount and on that second occasion is, that to the latter he does not affix the doxology, which many indeed suppose to be an interpolation; leaving this perhaps to be added according to the occasion and to the zeal of the worshipper. It cannot be imagined that either the disciples of our LORD, or of John, had hitherto neglected the duty of prayer, or that they performed it in an uncertain or disorderly manner, as they had set forms and hours of prayer, which all the devout Jews observed; it seems therefore obvious that a particular form is alluded to in the case of both, and the request to our LORD was made in pursuance of his encouraging direction, “Ask, and ye shall have,” and was gratified by him in compliance with the reasonable and well-known existing custom. “Thus,” as the learned Mede says on this subject, (see his discourse on Matt. vi. 9,) “their inadvertency” (in not understanding it the first time as a form) “becomes our confirmation. For, as Joseph said to Pharaoh, ‘the dream is doubled unto Pharaoh, because the thing is established by GOD,’ (Gen. xli. 32,) so may we say here, the delivery of this prayer was doubled unto the disciples, that they and we might thereby know the more certainly that our SAVIOUR, intended and commended it unto his Church for a set form of prayer.”

Our blessed LORD appears afterwards to refer to the custom now adopted by his disciples, and the well-known forms used, when he says, “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any: that your FATHER also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses” (Mark xi. 25); thus pointedly referring to two of its principal features, couched too in the same words. The apostle St. Peter seems to make the same allusion when he says, “If ye call on the FATHER,” &c. (1 Pet. i. 17.)

Some have argued that this prayer is to be considered as temporary only, and not of perpetual obligation, because we do not in it ask in the name of CHRIST, according to his direction; but a transaction may be opposed to this, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, (iv. 24,) in which it is seen, unless the apostles and disciples had so quickly forgotten the direction of their LORD, that prayers may be considered as offered up in the name of CHRIST, though addressed to GOD; for there the disciples, on the liberation of Peter and John by the Jewish council, lift up their voice and say, “LORD, thou art GOD, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is;” and they mention CHRIST as his holy child JESUS. In our addresses to GOD, our heavenly FATHER, we cannot forget him through whom we have access as to a father, being “joint-heirs with him.”

Another objection is made, that it does not appear in Scripture that the apostles used this prayer; but to this it may be remarked, that neither does it appear they used any other form, and yet some form of words must have been generally known and used by them, or how could “they lift up their voice with one accord.” (Acts iv. 24; i. 14.)

Bishop Jeremy Taylor justly says, “That the apostles did use the prayer their LORD taught them, I think need not much to be questioned; they could have no other end of their desire; and it had been a strange boldness to ask for a form which they intended not to use, or a strange levity not to do what they intended.”

The learned Bingham observes, that if there were no other argument to prove the lawfulness of set forms of prayer in the judgment of the ancients, the opinion which they had of the LORD’S Prayer, and their practice pursuant to this opinion, would sufficiently do it; and he remarks that they unequivocally looked upon it as a settled form: for Tertullian says expressly that “our LORD prescribed a new form of prayer for the new disciples of the New Testament, and that though John had taught his disciples a form, yet that he did this only as a forerunner of CHRIST, so that when CHRIST was increased, (‘he must increase, but I must decrease,’) then the work of the servant passed over to the LORD. Thus the prayer of John is lost, while that of our LORD remains, that earthly things may give way to heavenly.”

In similar terms speaks Irenæus, (who had himself heard Polycarp, the disciple of St. John,) Origen, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Cyril, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. The last says expressly, that as the Church always used this prayer, she did it at the commandment of CHRIST. “He said to his disciples—he said to his apostles and to us, pray thus.” St. Chrysostom refers continually to the LORD’S Prayer, as in common use among them by the express commandment of CHRIST, and observes, “that the FATHER well knows the words and meaning of his SON.” St. Cyprian says, “Let the FATHER recognise in your prayers the words of the SON;” and he considers it as a peculiar instance of mercy, “that he who made us taught us how to pray; that whilst we speak unto the FATHER in that prayer and address which the SON taught us, we may the more easily be heard.” He adds, “Since we have an Advocate with the FATHER for our sins, we should, whenever we pray for pardon, allege unto GOD the very words which our Advocate has taught us. We have his promise, that whatever we shall ask in his name we shall receive: and must we not more readily obtain our desires, when we not only use his name in asking, but in his very words, present our request unto GOD. Our Advocate in heaven has taught us to say this prayer upon earth, that between his intercession and our supplications the most perfect harmony may subsist.” The judicious Hooker observes, that “should men speak with the tongues of angels, yet words so pleasing to the ears of GOD, as those which the SON of GOD himself has composed, it were not possible for man to frame.”

There was, indeed, hardly any office in the primitive Church in which the celebration of this prayer did not make a solemn part; so that at length it was called the Oratio quotidiana, the daily, the common prayer; the Oratio legitima the established prayer, or the prayer of the Christian law; the “epitome of the gospel:” and St. Augustine even terms it, “the daily baptism,” and a “daily purification,” “for,” says he, “we are absolved once by baptism, but by this prayer daily.” When in succeeding ages some of the clergy in Spain occasionally omitted it in the daily service, they were censured by a council, as “proud contemners of the LORD’S injunction; and it was enacted, that every clergyman omitting it either in private or public prayer should be degraded from the dignity of his office.” It is worthy of remark, that the heathen writer Lucian, nearly contemporary with the apostles, makes a Christian, in one of his dialogues, speak of the prayer which began, “Our FATHER.”

The early Fathers were even of opinion, that the making use of this prayer was of vast efficacy to incline GOD to pardon sins of infirmity, especially those committed through want of fervour and sufficient attention in our other prayers. “As for our daily and slight sins,” says St. Augustine, “without which no one can live, the daily prayer will be accepted by GOD for pardon of them;” and the fourth Council of Toledo enjoins it for this among other reasons. This doctrine the Papists afterwards perverted, by their distinction of sins into venial and mortal, and by the pure opus operatum of repeating the LORD’S Prayer. Of this abuse there is happily no shadow in the present service of our Church, our reformers having wholly rejected and abolished the technical repetition of it (the Paternoster) with chaplets and rosaries, to which truly “vain repetitions” the Church of Rome had annexed indulgences.

In conclusion, in whatever else the various liturgies differ, they all agree in the constant and frequent use of this prayer. Dr. Featly says, “the reformed Churches generally conclude their prayers before sermon with the LORD’S Prayer, partly in opposition to the Papists, who close up their devotions with an Ave Maria, partly to supply all the defects and imperfections of their own.” And the learned Bingham pointedly declares, “I dare undertake to prove, that for 1500 years together, none ever disliked the use of the LORD’S Prayer, but only the Pelagians; and they did not wholly reject the use of it neither, nor dislike it because it was a form, but for another reason, because it contradicted one of their principal tenets, which was, that some men were so perfect in this world, that they needed not to pray to GOD for the forgiveness of their own sins, but only for those of others.”

For these reasons we cannot but protest against the conclusion of the following paragraph taken from the works of Mr. Boston, a man of exemplary piety, but, as it would seem, of strong prejudices: “From the whole, I think it is evident, that a prayer formed upon the model of this excellent pattern, having the substance of the several petitions interspersed through it, though expressed in other words, is a true Scriptural prayer” (granted, it must be so); “and that there is no necessity to conclude with the LORD’S Prayer” (this is less certain). “And, therefore, I cannot but think that Papists, and many Protestants who conclude their prayers with the very words of the LORD’S Prayer, make a very superstitious use of it, causing people to imagine that the bare recital of the words of the LORD’S Prayer sanctifies their other prayers; and that no prayer can be accepted of GOD where this, I cannot but call it vain, repetition is omitted.” It is confidently hoped that, if what is collected in the present article be perused with attention, the members of the Church of England will be led to exclaim, “We ‘have not so learned CHRIST.’”

The LORD’S Prayer is to be said with an audible voice.—It was an ancient custom for the priest to say some parts of the liturgy internally, (secreto, ἐν ἑαυτῷ, or μυστικῶς,) in an unintelligible whisper; and in some instances the people joined in this manner, as was the case with respect to the LORD’S Prayer and the creed. This unreasonable practice was put an end to at the Reformation, and the LORD’S Prayer in particular was directed to be said “with an audible voice,” “with a loud voice;” probably that the people might sooner learn this most essential prayer; a practice from which the ignorant may even now find benefit.

The flaming ardency of the seven spirits, and of all the heavenly choir, appears in the intenseness and loudness of their songs, “To him all angels cry aloud!” They do not breathe out faint or forced hallelujahs; their songs resemble, as St. John describes them, “the voice of many waters,” and “the voice of mighty thunderings.” (Rev. xix. 6.) But where are the least tokens of this seraphic ardency in our worship here on earth? The sacrifice of this our public service, like Elijah’s, is put in excellent order, but we ourselves “put no fire under!” On the contrary, a voluntary coldness runs through all the parts and offices of it, like the water poured on by Elijah, which “ran round the altar and filled all the trenches.” And it is next to a miracle if God accepts such cold offerings, or answers us from heaven, unless with the fire, not of acceptance, but of vengeance.—Bisse on the Lord’s Prayer.

The people are to repeat it with the priest.—When the LORD’S Prayer was directed to be said with an audible voice, it was, in the Romish Church, said by the priest alone; but in the Greek and ancient Gallican Churches, by the priest and people together—a custom which the Church of England has adopted in preference to the Roman. Until the review of 1661, the minister began the prayer, and went through it alone to the conclusion of the last petition, “but deliver us from evil,” which the people said; in order, as Bishop Sparrow remarks, that they might not be interrupted from bearing a part in so divine a prayer. In a rubric in the Communion Service, near the conclusion, the manner in which the LORD’S Prayer should be used is clearly laid down. “Then shall the priest say the LORD’S Prayer, the people repeating after him every petition.”

In none of the successive editions of the Prayer Book till the last review, was there any direction for the people prefixed to the first occurrence of the LORD’S Prayer. In King Edward’s First Book at its second recurrence, after the creed, the latter clause, “but deliver us from evil,” was inserted. This was altered in the Second Book of King Edward; and the direction, “Then the minister, clerks, and people,” &c., inserted, as we have it now. In the Litany, the two last clauses were marked as verse and response, till the last review. In the Communion no direction was given for the people;—at its second occurrence, the verse and response were marked, as in the Litany: but in the Second Book, the people were directed to repeat after him every petition, as now. The Scotch Prayer Book (temp. K. Chas. I.) first inserted the doxology, at both its occurrence in Morning and Evening Prayer, and at its last in the Communion. At the last review the doxology was inserted at its first occurrence in the Morning and Evening Prayer, and at the end of the Communion; and the versicular arrangement in the Litany was altered. The notation of the verse and response, with their proper cadences, is retained in the old choral manuals.

Wheatly remarks that “the doxology was appointed by the last review to be used in this place, partly, he supposes, because many copies of St. Matthew have it, and the Greek Fathers expound it; and partly because the office here is a matter of praise, it being used immediately after the absolution.” And again, in the Post Communion, “the doxology is here annexed, because all these devotions are designed for an act of praise, for the benefits received in the holy sacrament.” And in the Churching of Women, “the doxology was added to the LORD’S Prayer at the last review, by reason of its being an office of thanksgiving.”

In the Romish service, except in the Mass, the priest speaks the words, “Et ne nos,” &c., “Lead us not into temptation,” in a peculiar tone of voice, by which the people are apprized of its being the time for them to answer, “But deliver us from evil.” This also is a custom at the end of every prayer, that the people may know when to say “Amen.” In the Mosarabic liturgy the priest says the prayer by himself, and the people answer “Amen” to each petition.

The catechumens and the energumens, or those possessed with evil spirits, were not suffered in the primitive Church to join in the tremendous cry sent up by the people, but only bowed their heads in token of assent.

It may be observed that the several paragraphs of the LORD’S Prayer are made to begin, in our Church Prayer Book, with a capital letter, in order, most probably, to mark accurately the places where the people should take up their parts; and this method is adopted in the confession in the daily service, in the creeds, the Gloria in excelsis, in the Communion Service, and in the confession and deprecation in the Commination Service on Ash Wednesday.

But it must likewise be observed, that this method does not seem to be so closely followed in the Cambridge as in the Oxford books, the former combining the fourth and fifth paragraphs, the seventh and eighth, and the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth in the LORD’S Prayer; and yet in these copies the word “and” is retained before “the power,” &c., but dropped in the latter.

To make this matter clear, however, we subjoin the prayer as printed and pointed in the sealed books, at the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer.

Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in Earth, As it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them, that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us from evil: For thine is the Kingdom, the Power, And the Glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

Here and before the Power is, in all the collated copies of sealed books, crossed out with a pen, both in the Morning and Evening Prayer.

In the Post Communion Service, there is some difference of punctuation and of type: e.g.

Our Father which art in heaven; Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation: But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

Here and was never inserted before The power.

After the Creed, the punctuation is as in the first specimen, except a colon after temptation, and a full stop with “Amen” after evil. Heaven and Earth do not begin with capitals. The same in the Litany, except there is a semicolon after temptation. At its first occurrence in the Communion, the punctuation, &c. is the same as in the Post Communion, except that there is a comma after temptation. A full stop and “Amen” after evil.

Demosthenes said, when he was reproved for studying his orations, that it argued his reverence for the people of Athens. So doth our study, in making exact forms, declare our esteem for Almighty GOD.—Comber. And we have this sacred form from the Wonderful Counsellor, who came out of the bosom of his FATHER, and knew his treasures, as well as our wants; he best could inform us what was fit for us to ask, and what most likely for him to grant: he was to go to heaven to be our advocate there, and he hath taught us to use this here, that there may be a harmony between our requests and his. For which cause it ought to be united to all our offices to make up their defects, and recommend them to “Our heavenly FATHER,” who cannot deny us when we speak the very same words which his dear SON hath put in our mouths, if we use them with understanding and devotion.—Ibid.

LORD’S SUPPER. An ancient name for the sacrament of the holy eucharist. The name occurs in 1 Cor. xi. 20; but in that passage it is generally supposed by the most learned divines, that reference is made to the love-feast, kept in imitation of our LORD’S last supper, which was previous to the original eucharist. Thus much, however, says Dr. Waterland, is certain, that in the apostolical times the love-feast and the eucharist, though distinct, went together, and were nearly allied to each other, and were both of them celebrated at one meeting. (See Eucharist, Agapæ, and Communion.)

As by the sacrament of baptism we enter into the Christian covenant, so by that of the LORD’S supper we profess our thankful continuance in it: and therefore the first answer of our catechism concerning this ordinance tells us, that it was appointed “for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of CHRIST, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.”—Abp. Secker.

It is called the LORD’S supper because it was both instituted by our LORD at supper, and was designed to succeed into the place of the paschal supper of the Jews. (Matt. xxvi. 26, &c.; Mark xiv. 22; 1 Cor. xi. 23–25, &c.)—Abp. Wake.

LORD’S TABLE. One of the names given to the altar in Christian churches. (See Altar.)

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us