A church dictionary (part 6 of 8)

A church dictionary (part 6 of 8)

After our SAVIOUR’S ascension, St. James was chosen bishop of Jerusalem. St. Paul, after his conversion, addressed himself to this apostle, by whom he was honoured with the right hand of fellowship. It was to St. James, St. Peter sent the news of his miraculous deliverance out of prison. This apostle was principally active at the Synod of Jerusalem, in the great controversy concerning the Jewish rites and ceremonies. He was of a meek and humble disposition. His temperance was admirable; for he wholly abstained from flesh, and drank neither wine nor strong drink, nor ever used the bath. Prayer was his constant business and delight, and by his daily devotions his knees were become as hard and brawny as camels.

St. Paul having escaped the malice of the Jews, by appealing to Cæsar, they resolved to revenge it upon St. James, who was accused before their council of transgressing the Law, and blaspheming against GOD. The scribes and Pharisees endeavoured, by flattering speeches, to engage him, at the confluence of the paschal solemnity, to undeceive the people concerning JESUS CHRIST; and, that he might be the better heard, they carried him with them to the top of the temple. There they addressed him in these words; “Tell us, O just man, what are we to believe concerning JESUS CHRIST, who was crucified?” He answered with a loud voice; “He sits in heaven on the right hand of the Majesty on high, and will come again in the clouds of heaven.” Enraged at this reply, they threw him down from the place where he stood; and being very much bruised, though not killed, he recovered strength enough to get upon his knees, and pray for his murderers, who loaded him with a shower of stones, till one with a fuller’s club beat out his brains.

PHOTINIANS, or SUTINIANS. Heretics, in the fourth century, so denominated from Photinus, bishop of Simich, a person of great accomplishments, and who, in the first years of his administration of that see, appeared very regular, but changed suddenly after he had taught the people the knowledge of the true GOD, that is, attempted to corrupt them, says Vincentius Lirinensis, by his detestable opinions and doctrine; for, not contented with renewing the errors of Sabellius, Paulus Samosatenus, Cerinthus, and Ebion, he added to their impieties, that JESUS CHRIST was not only mere man, but began to be the CHRIST when the HOLY GHOST descended upon him in Jordan.

PHYLACTERY. (φυλακτήριον.) This word is derived from the Greek, and properly denotes a preservative, such as pagans carried about them to preserve them from evils, diseases, or dangers; for example, they were stones, or pieces of metal, engraved under certain aspects of the planets. The East is to this day filled with this superstition; and the men do not only wear phylacteries for themselves, but for their animals also.

PICARDS. The name of a Christian sect, who improved the mistakes of the Adamites to the extravagance of going naked. They sprung up in the beginning of the fifteenth century, and were denominated from one Picard, who set it on foot: he ordered all his proselytes to go naked, called himself the SON of GOD, and pretended he was sent into the world as a new Adam, by his Father, to refresh the notion, and restore the practice of the law of nature, which, he said, consisted principally in two things, the community of women, and going stark naked. And one of the principal tenets of this people was, that their party were the only free people in nature, all other men being slaves, especially those who wore any clothes upon the score of modesty.

PIE. This was the table used before the Reformation to find out the service belonging to each day. If the word be of Greek origin, it may be referred to πίναξ or πινακίδιον. But the Latin word is pica, which perhaps came from the ignorance of the friars, who have thrust in many barbarous words into the liturgies. Some say pie is derived from litera picata, a great black letter in the beginning of some new order in the prayer, and among printers that term is still used, the pica letter.

PIER. The solid masses of masonry between arched openings, as in bridges, and between windows and doors. This name is so often given to the pillars in Gothic architecture, that it would be pedantic entirely to disuse it in that sense; but it ought in strictness to be confined at least to those wall-like square pillars, which are found in Norman architecture; as, for instance, alternately with proper pillars in Durham cathedral, or in the nave of Norwich.

PIETISTS. A set of zealous but misguided men in Germany, the followers of Philip James Spener, who attempted the revival of what he called vital religion in Germany in the seventeenth century, and to that end assembled around him those like-minded with himself, and in societies which he formed, commonly called Colleges of Piety, laid the foundations of many disorders. His disciples, as is usual, far outran the more measured zeal of their master; and their false notions, amounting sometimes to principles of mutiny and sedition, gave rise to a long and bitter controversy in Germany.

PILGRIMAGE. A kind of superstitious discipline, which consists in making a journey to some holy place, in order to adore the relics of some deceased saint. Pilgrimages began to be made in the fourth century, but they were most in vogue after the end of the eleventh century, when every one was for visiting places of devotion, not excepting kings and princes; and even bishops made no difficulty of being absent from their churches on the same account.

PILLAR. The isolated support of an arch, including base, shaft, and capital, in Norman and Gothic architecture. There were great variations in the forms of pillars during the progress of ecclesiastical architecture. The Norman pillar is often a square, pier-like mass, relieved by attached semi-pillars, or by three-quarter shaft in retiring angles, as in the accompanying example from Norwich; or it is a cylindrical shaft, often fluted, or cut in zigzags or other diaper patterns. The Early English pillar frequently consists of a central bearing shaft, surrounded by smaller detached shafts; either set almost close to the central shaft, sometimes even within hollows, as at York, so as to lose the effect of their separateness, or at a very considerable distance from the central shaft, as at Chichester and Ely.

The Geometrical pillar but seldom retains the detached shaft. Its section is perhaps more usually a quatrefoil than any other single form; but there are countless varieties, the mouldings always of course following the style to which they belong. The accompanying example is from St. Asaph. The Decorated pillar is equally various in section; where it is moulded, the ogee usually forms part of it, but in small and plain examples it is very frequently a simple octagon. In the Perpendicular the pillar follows the general poverty of the style, but it is also distinguished by the base being stilted; by the outer mouldings being continuous, and the inner order only being carried by an attached shaft with a capital; and by its being narrower from east to west than from north to south. The exceptions, however, to all these rules are so numerous, that they could only be represented by many illustrations.

PINNACLE. A small spire-like termination to a buttress, or to any decorative shaft rising above the parapet. In buttresses, especially flying buttresses, the pinnacles are of great use in resisting the outward pressure by their weight. They do not occur in Norman architecture; they are, in fact, a correlative of the pointed arch.

The pinnacle at the temple at Jerusalem was probably the gallery, or parapet, or wall on the top of the buttresses, which surrounded the roof of the temple, properly so called. Josephus tells us that the roof of the temple was defended by pretty tall golden spikes, to hinder birds from alighting thereon. It was not on the roof of the temple that JESUS CHRIST was placed, but on the wall that surrounded the roof.—Calmet’s Dict. of the Bible, ed. Taylor.

PISCINA. Originally signified a fishpond; and in a secondary sense, any vessel for holding or receiving water. A water drain, usually accompanied with decorative features, near the altar, on the south side. The piscina is often the only remaining indication of the place where an altar has been. Some churches have double piscinas.

PISCIS, PISCICULI, and VESICA PISCIS. The fish is an hieroglyphic of JESUS CHRIST, very common in the remains of Christian art, both primitive and mediæval. The origin of it is as follows:—From the name and title of our blessed LORD, Ἰησοῦς Χριστὺς Θεοῦ Ὑιὸς Σωτὴρ, JESUS CHRIST, the SON of GOD, the SAVIOUR, the early Christians, taking the first letter of each word, formed the name ἸΧΘΥΣ, Piscis, a fish. From this name of our blessed LORD, Christians also came to be called Pisciculi, fishes, with reference to their regeneration in the waters of baptism, consecrated to that effect by our blessed LORD, the mystical ἸΧΘΥΣ. Thus Tertullian, speaking of Christians, says, “for we, after our LORD and SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST, our ἸΧΘΥΣ, are also fishes, and born in the water; nor are we otherwise saved but by remaining in the water.” The Vesica Piscis, which is the figure of an oval, generally pointed at either end, and which is much used as the form of the seals of religious houses, and to enclose figures of JESUS CHRIST, or of the saints, also has its rise from this name of our blessed LORD: though some say, that the mystical Vesica Piscis has no reference, except in its name, to a fish, but represents the almond, the symbol of virginity and self-production. Clement of Alexandria, in writing of the ornaments which a Christian may consistently wear, mentions the fish as a proper device for a ring, and says, that it may serve to remind the Christian of the origin of his spiritual life.

PIUS IV. (See Creed.)

PLANETA. (See Chasuble.)

PLENARTY, (from the word plenus, “full,”) signifying that a church is full, or provided with, an incumbent.

PLURALITY. This is where the same person obtains two or more livings with cure of souls. There are various canons of the Church against the practice; and the authorities of the Church are taking prompt measures to abolish it in the English Church. The statute 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106, and subsequently the 13 and 14 Vic. c. 98, made very important changes in the law of England regarding pluralities.

PLUVIALE. Another name for the cope: so called because it was originally a cloak, a defence from the rain. (See Cope.)

PLYMOUTH BRETHREN. Of this sect, who call themselves the Brethren, the following account is taken from the Register-general’s return.

“Those to whom this appellation is applied receive it only as descriptive of their individual state as Christians—not as a name by which they might be known collectively as a distinct religious sect. It is not from any common doctrinal peculiarity or definite ecclesiastical organization that they have the appearance of a separate community; but rather from the fact that, while all other Christians are identified with some particular section of the Church of GOD, the persons known as ‘Brethren’ utterly refuse to be identified with any. Their existence is, in fact, a protest against all sectarianism; and the primary ground of their secession from the different bodies to which most of them have once belonged, is, that the various tests by which, in all these bodies, the communion of true Christians with each other is prevented or impeded, are unsanctioned by the Word of GOD. They see no valid reason why the Church (consisting of all true believers) which is really one, should not be also visibly united, having as its only bond of fellowship and barrier of exclusion, the reception or rejection of those vital truths by which the Christian is distinguished from the unbeliever. Looking at existing churches, it appears to them that all are faulty in this matter; national Churches by adopting a too lax—dissenting Churches by adopting a too limited—criterion of membership. The former, it appears to Brethren, by considering as members all within a certain territory, mingle in one body the believers and the unbelievers; while the latter, by their various tests of doctrine or of discipline, exclude from their communion many who are clearly and undoubtedly true members of the universal Church. The Brethren, therefore, may be represented as consisting of all such as, practically holding all the truths essential to salvation, recognise each other as, on that account alone, true members of the only Church. A difference of opinion upon aught besides is not regarded as sufficient ground for separation; and the Brethren, therefore, have withdrawn themselves from all those bodies in which tests, express or virtual, on minor points, are made the means of separating Christians from each other.

“In the judgment of the Brethren, the disunion now existing in the general Church is the result of a neglect to recognise the HOLY SPIRIT as its all-sufficient guide. Instead, they say, of a reliance on his promised presence and sovereignty as CHRIST’S vicar on earth, ever abiding to assert and maintain his lordship in the Church according to the written Word, men, by their creeds and articles, have questioned the sufficiency of Scripture as interpreted to all by him, and, by their ministerial and ritual appointments, have assumed to specify the channels through which only can his blessings be communicated. All these various human forms and systems are believed by Brethren to be destitute of scriptural authority, and practically restrictive of the HOLY SPIRIT’S operations.

“Chiefly with regard to ministry are these opinions urged; the usual method of ordaining special persons to the office, being held to be unscriptural and prejudicial. They conceive that Christians in general confound ministry (i.e. the exercise of a spiritual gift) with local charges, as eldership, &c. Such charges, they infer from Scripture, required the sanction of apostles or their delegates, to validate the appointment (Acts xiv. 23; Titus i. 5); whereas the ‘gifts’ never needed any human authorization (Acts xviii. 24–28; Rom. xii.; 1 Cor. xii.—xvi.; Phil. i. 14; 1 Peter iv. 9, 10). Further, they urge that while Scripture warrants the Church to expect a perpetuity of ‘gifts,’—as evangelists, pastors, teachers, exhorters, rulers, &c.,—because they are requisite for the work of the ministry, (Eph. iv. 7–13,)—it nowhere guarantees a permanent ordaining power, without which the nomination or ordaining of elders is valueless. All believers are, it is affirmed, true spiritual priests capacitated for worship, (Heb. x. 19–25,) and all who possess the qualifications from the LORD are authorized to evangelize the world or instruct the Church; and such have not alone the liberty, but also an obligation to employ whatever gift may be intrusted to their keeping. Hence, in their assemblies, Brethren have no pre-appointed person to conduct or share in the proceedings; all is open to the guidance of the HOLY GHOST at the time, so that he who believes himself to be so led of the SPIRIT, may address the meeting, &c. This arrangement is considered to be indicated as the proper order in 1 Cor. xiv.,—to flow from the principle laid down in 1 Cor. xii.,—and to be traceable historically in the Acts of the Apostles. By adopting it, the Brethren think that they avoid two evils, by which all existing sects are, more or less, distinguished; the first, the evil of not employing talents given to believers for the Church’s benefit; the second, the evil of appointing as the Church’s teachers men in whom the gifts essential for the work have not yet been discovered. The Brethren, therefore, recognise no separate orders of ‘clergy’ and ‘laity’—all are looked upon as equal in position, (Matt. xxiii. 8; 1 Cor. x. 17; xii. 12–20, &c.,) differing only as to ‘gifts’ of ruling, teaching, preaching, and the like (Rom. xii. 4–8; 1 Cor. xii. 18, 28, &c.). The ordinances, consequently, of baptism, when administered, and the LORD’S supper, which is celebrated weekly, need no special person to administer or preside (Acts ix. 10–18; x. 48; xx. 7; 1 Cor. xi.). Another feature of some importance is, that wherever gifted men are found among the Brethren, they, in general, are actively engaged in preaching and expounding, &c., on their own individual responsibility to the Lord, and quite distinct from the assembly. So that, though they may occasionally use the buildings where the Brethren meet, it is in no way as ministers of the Brethren, but of CHRIST.

“The number of places of worship which the Census officers in England and Wales returned as frequented by the Brethren was 132; but probably this number is below the truth, in consequence of the objection which they entertain to acknowledge any sectarian appellation. Several congregations may be included with the number (96) described as ‘Christians’ only.”

PŒNULA. (See Chasuble.)

POLITY, ECCLESIASTICAL. By this is meant the constitution and government of the Christian Church, considered as a society.

Scarce anything in religion (says a learned author) has been more mistaken than the nature and extent of that power, which our blessed SAVIOUR established in his Church. Some have not only excluded the civil magistrates of Christian states from having any concernment in the exercise of this power, and exempted all persons invested with it from the civil courts of justice, but have raised their supreme governor of the Church to a supremacy, even in civil affairs, over the chief magistrate; insomuch that he has pretended, on some occasions, to absolve subjects from their allegiance to their lawful princes; and others have run so far into contrary mistakes, as either to derive all spiritual power wholly from the civil magistrate, or to allow the exercise thereof to all Christians without distinction. The first of these opinions manifestly tends to create divisions in the State, and to excite subjects to rebel against their civil governors: the latter do plainly strike at the foundation of all ecclesiastical power; and wherever they are put in practice, not only the external order and discipline, but even the sacraments of the Church must be destroyed, and its whole constitution be quite dissolved.

The nature of ecclesiastical polity will be best understood by looking back to the constitution of the ancient Christian Church.

The Church, as a society, consisted of several orders of men. Eusebius reckons three: viz. the Ἡγούμενοι, Πιστοὶ, and Κατηχούμενοι, i. e. rulers, believers, and catechumens. Origen reckons five orders: but then he divides the clergy into three orders, to make up the number. Both these accounts, when compared together, come to the same thing. Under the Ἡγούμενοι, or rulers, are comprehended the clergy, bishops, priests, and deacons; under the Πιστοὶ, or believers, the baptized laity; and under the Κατηχούμενοι, or catechumens, the candidates for baptism. The believers were perfect Christians; the catechumens imperfect. The former, having received baptism, were allowed to partake of the eucharist; to join in all the prayers of the Church; and to hear discourses upon the most profound mysteries of religion: more particularly the use of the LORD’S Prayer was the sole prerogative of the believers, whence it was called Εὐχὴ πιστῶν, the prayer of believers. From all these privileges the catechumens were excluded. (See Catechumens.)

The distinction between the laity and the clergy may be deduced from the very beginnings of the Christian Church; notwithstanding that Rigaltius, Salmasius, and Selden pretend there was originally no distinction, but that it is a novelty, and owing to the ambition of the clergy of the third century, in which Cyprian and Tertullian lived. (See Clergy.)

The clergy of the Christian Church consisted of several orders, both superior and inferior.

The superior orders of the clergy were, 1. The Bishops; 2. The Presbyters; 3. The Deacons.

It has been pretended that the bishops and presbyters were the same; and this opinion has given rise to the sect of the Presbyterians. But it is clearly proved against them, from ecclesiastical antiquity, that bishops and presbyters were distinct orders of the clergy. (See Bishops, Deacons, Presbyters, and Presbyterians.)

Among the bishops there was a subordination, they being distinguished into, 1. Primate Metropolitans; 2. Patriarchs or Archbishops; 3. Diocesan Bishops; 4. Chorepiscopi or Suffragan Bishops. (See the articles Archbishops, Chorepiscopi, Diocese, Patriarchs. and Primates.)

The presbyters were the second order of the superior clergy, and besides being the bishop’s assistants in his cathedral church, had the care of the smaller districts, or parishes, of which each diocese consisted. (See Parishes and Presbyters.)

The deacons were the third order of the superior clergy, and were a kind of assistants to the bishops and presbyters, in the administration of the eucharist, and other parts of Divine service. There were likewise deaconesses, or female deacons, who were employed in the service of the women. Out of the order of deacons was chosen the archdeacon, who presided over the deacons and all the inferior officers of the Church. (See the articles Archdeacons, Deacons, and Deaconesses.)

The inferior orders of the clergy were, 1. The Sub-deacons; 2. The Acolyths; 3. The Exorcists; 4. The Readers; 5. The Door-keepers; 6. The Singers; 7. The Copiatæ, or Fossarii; 8. The Parabolani; 9. The Catechists; 10. The Syndics; 11. The Stewards. (See each under their respective articles.)

All these orders of the clergy were appointed to their several offices in the Church by solemn forms of consecration or ordination, and had their respective privileges, immunities, and revenues. And, by means of this gradation and subordination in the hierarchy, the worship and discipline of the primitive Church were exactly kept up, according to St. Paul’s direction, “Let everything be done decently, and in order.”

How far the constitution of our own Church agrees with, or has departed from, this plan of the ancient hierarchy, may be seen at one glance of the eye. We have the general distinction of bishops, presbyters or priests, and deacons. Among the first we retain only the distinction of archbishops (with the title likewise of primates) and bishops, having no patriarchs or chorepiscopi. And as to the inferior orders of the clergy, as acolyths, &c., they are all unknown to the Church of England. The Romish Church has retained most of them, but it were to be wished she came as near to the faith and worship, as she does to the external constitution, of the hierarchy of the ancient Church.

But, as no society can subsist without laws, and penalties annexed to the breach of them, so the unity and worship of the Christian Church were secured by laws both ecclesiastical and civil. The ecclesiastical laws were, either rules and orders made by each bishop for the better regulation of his particular diocese; or laws made, in provincial synods, for the government of all the diocese of a province; or, lastly, laws respecting the whole Christian Church, made in general councils, or assemblies of bishops from all parts of the Christian world. (See Synods.)

The civil laws of the Church were those decrees and edicts, made from time to time by the emperors, either restraining the power of the Church, or granting it new privileges, or confirming the old.

The breach of these laws was severally punished both by the Church and State. The ecclesiastical censures, respecting offenders among the clergy, were, chiefly, suspension from the office, and deprivation of the rights and privileges of the order. Those respecting the laity consisted chiefly in excommunication, or rejection from the communion of the Church, and penance both public and private.

POLYGLOTT BIBLES, are such Bibles, or editions of the Holy Scriptures, as are printed in various languages, at least three, the texts of which are ranged in opposite columns. Some of these Polyglott editions contain the whole Bible, others but a part of it. The principal Polyglotts that have yet appeared are these following:—

1. The Bible of Francis Ximenes, cardinal of the order of St. Francis. It was printed in 1514–17, in four languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and Latin. From having been printed at Alcala, in Spain, anciently Complutum, this is called the Complutensian Polyglott. It cost Cardinal Ximenes 50,000 ducats.

2. The Psalter of Justiniani, bishop of Nebbio, of the order of St. Dominic. It appeared in 1516, in five languages; Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Latin, and Arabic.

3. The Psalter, by John Potken, provost of the collegiate church of St. George, at Cologne, published in 1518, in four languages—Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee, and Latin.

4. The Pentateuch, published by the Jews, at Constantinople, in 1546, in Hebrew, Chaldee, Persian, and Arabic; with the commentaries of Solomon Jarchi.

5. The Pentateuch, by the same Jews, in the same city, in 1547, in four languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, the vulgar Greek, and Spanish.

6. An imperfect Polyglott, containing only fragments of the book of Genesis and of the Psalms; the Proverbs, the prophets Micah and Joel, with part of Isaiah, Zechariah, and Malachi; published by John Draconitis, of Carlostad, in Franconia, in 1563–5, in five languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Latin, and German.

7. Christopher Plantin’s Polyglott Bible, published by order of Philip II., king of Spain, Antwerp, in 1569, 1572. It is in eight volumes, and in Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and Latin: with the Syriac version of the New Testament. This is called the Antwerp Polyglott.

8. Vatablus’s Polyglott Bible, being the Old Testament in Hebrew and Greek, with two Latin versions, one of St. Jerome, the other of Sanctus Pagninus; and Vatablus’s notes. The editorship is attributed to R. Stephens, by Bishop Walton. Dibdin ascribes it to Bertramus, Hebrew professor at Geneva. It appeared at Heidelberg, in 1586.

9. A Bible in four languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, published by David Wolder, a Lutheran minister, at Hamburg, in 1596.

10. The Polyglotts of Elias Hutter, a German. The first, printed at Nuremberg, in 1599, contains the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, in six languages; viz. the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Latin, Luther’s German, and Sclavonian; or French, Italian, or Saxon; the copies varying according to the nations they were designed for.

This author published the Psalter and New Testament, in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German. But his chief work is the New Testament in twelve languages, viz. Syriac, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, French, Latin, German, Bohemian, English, Danish, and Polish. This was printed at Nuremberg, in 1599.

11. M. le Jay’s Bible, in seven languages, printed at Paris, in 1645. The languages are, the Hebrew, Samaritan, Chaldee, Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Arabic.

12. Walton’s Polyglott, published in England, in 1657. In nine languages, viz. the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Samaritan, Syrian, Arabic, Æthiopic, Persic, and Latin; though no one book is printed in so many. This was the most complete and perfect Polyglott ever published. It consists of five volumes, with prolegomena, by Walton, which are in themselves a treasure of biblical criticism, some treatises in the first volume, several new Oriental versions in the fourth and fifth, and a very large collection of various readings in the sixth.

13. Reineccius’, or the Leipsic Polyglott, printed at Leipsic, 1753, in 3 vols., in Latin, German, Hebrew, and Greek: a cheap and commodious edition.

14. Bagster’s Polyglott, London, 1821, 4to and 8vo, in five languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English. Syriac.

POLYGLOTT PRAYER BOOK. The English Prayer Book was published in 1819, in eight languages, English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, ancient and modern Greek, and Latin.

PONTIFICAL. A book containing the offices used by a bishop, at consecration of churches, &c. Thus the Roman Pontifical is the book of offices for a bishop, according to the rites of the Roman Church. In England the Pontifical is not by authority published separately from the liturgy, so that it is never called by that name; though the offices of confirmation and ordination, in fact, compose the English Pontifical. For the consecration of churches and churchyards we have no office appointed by sufficient authority. (See Consecration of Churches.)

PONTIFICALIA. Properly the ensigns of a pontiff’s or bishop’s office; but the term is loosely used for any ecclesiastical dress. It is so used in the account of Bishop Andrewes’ consecration of St. Mary’s, Southampton, in Sparrow’s collection: “Episcopus capellam statim ingressus niduit se pontificalibus.”

POOR MAN’S BOX; or Poor Men’s Box. Till the last review, it was directed that the collection at the offertory should be put into the Poor Man’s Box: a term which (in imitation of the Scotch liturgy) was altered in the last review to a decent basin. It is clear, however, from many documents, that basins of gold and silver, and other metinal were used in the Church of England ever since the Reformation. In Ireland the Poor Man’s Box, or poor-box, as it is generally called, is still in general use. An oval box, half covered, of copper or wood, with a long handle. The Poor Man’s Box does not seem to be the same as the Alms’ Chest, prescribed by the 84th canon. So Wheatly observes: “not, I presume, into that fixed in the church, but into a little box which the churchwardens, or some other proper persons, carried about with them in their hands, as is still the custom at the Temple Church in London.”—Jebb.

POPE, THE. The sovereign pontiff, or supreme head, of the Romish Church. The appellation of Pope (Papa) was, anciently, given to all Christian bishops: but, about the latter end of the eleventh century, in the pontificate of Gregory VII., it was usurped by the bishop of Rome, whose peculiar title it has ever since continued.

The spiritual monarchy of Rome sprang up soon after the declension of the Roman empire; and one great, though remote, instrument, in promoting the increase of this monarchy, so pernicious to the supreme civil power, was, the barbarity and ignorance which from that time spread itself over the Western parts.

Rome was chosen for the place of residence of the ecclesiastical monarchy, because this city had the particular prerogative of being the capital city of the Roman empire, where the Christian religion had its first rise and increase. For what is related concerning St. Peter’s chair is nothing but a vain pretence, which may easily be seen from hence, that, afterwards, the bishop of Constantinople had the next place assigned him after the bishop of Rome, only because that city was then the place of the emperor’s residence, and called New Rome. And when afterwards the Western empire was come to decay, and the city of Rome had lost its former lustre, the bishop of Constantinople disputed the precedency with the Roman bishop. It is true the emperor Phocas granted the right of precedency to Boniface III., then bishop of Rome, who thereupon took upon him the title of Œcumenical bishop: but this did not imply any power or jurisdiction over the rest; for the other patriarchs never acknowledged any. So that here are no footsteps of Divine institution to be found, the papal power being purely human, and an usurpation upon the rights of other sees.

The bishops of Rome did not extend their power over the Western parts all at once; but it was introduced from time to time, by degrees, by various artifices, and under various pretences. What chiefly contributed to its growth was, first, the emperors choosing other places of residence besides Rome; for, by their constant presence there, they might easily have kept under the ambitious designs of the bishops. In the next place, the Western empire was divided into several new kingdoms, erected by the several barbarous and pagan nations, and these, having been converted to the Christian faith by the direction of the Romish Church, thought themselves obliged to pay her the profoundest respect.

In the fifth century, the bishops on this side of the Alps began to go to Rome, to visit the sepulchres of St. Peter and St. Paul. This voluntary devotion insensibly grew into a necessity. From hence it was easy for the popes afterwards to pretend, that the bishops ought to receive their confirmation from Rome. Besides, some other bishops and churches, that were novices in comparison of the ancient Roman Church, used to refer themselves to, and ask the advice of, the Church of Rome, concerning matters of great consequence, and the true interpretation of the canons. Hence the bishops of Rome, perceiving their answers were received as decisions, began to send their decrees before they were demanded. And hence they set themselves up as judges of the differences arising between the bishops, and, encroaching on the right and jurisdiction of the metropolitans, proceeded to suspend and depose whom they thought fit. At the same time, by making void the decisions of the provincial synods, they so diminished their authority, that by degrees they were quite abolished. Add to this, that Gregory VII. forced the bishops to take an oath of fealty to the popes, and by a decree enacted that none should dare to condemn any one, who had appealed to the pope. Nor did they forget to send legates or nuncios to all places, whose business was to exercise, in the pope’s name, the same authority, which had formerly belonged to the bishops and provincial synods. (See Legate.)

It is certain that many Romish bishops, especially among those on this side the Alps, were to a late period opposed to the pope’s authority; which evidently appeared at the Council of Trent, where the French and Spanish bishops insisted very strongly to have it decided, that bishops are obliged to residence by the law of GOD; the consequence of which was, the deriving their authority from GOD alone. The pope met with great difficulty before he could surmount this obstacle; and therefore it is very likely this will be the last council, since the pope will scarce put his grandeur to the hazard and decision of such another assembly. Not to mention that they are now of no farther use, since the Jesuits and others have taught, that the pope is infallible, and superior to councils. However that may be, the bishops are obliged for their own sakes not to withdraw themselves from the pope’s jurisdiction, since thereby they would fall under the civil power, and would be obliged to seek protection from their sovereigns, who must be potent princes, if they could protect them against the pope; so that they think it wiser, of two evils to choose the least.

The spiritual monarchy of Rome could not have been established, had its bishops continued dependent on any temporal prince; and therefore the popes took their opportunity to exempt themselves from the jurisdiction of the Greek emperors, whose authority was mightily decayed in Italy. This was greatly forwarded by the dispute concerning the use of images. For the emperor Leo Isaurus having quite ejected them out of the churches, Pope Gregory II., who stood up for the images, took occasion to oppose him, and stirred up the Romans and Italians to refuse to pay him tribute; by which means the power of the Greek emperors was lost in Italy, and these countries began to be free and independent of any foreign jurisdiction.

The pope, having freed himself from the authority of the emperors of Constantinople, and being in danger from the Lombards, who endeavoured to make themselves masters of Italy, had recourse for protection to the kings of France. Pepin, and afterwards Charles the Great, having entirely subdued the Lombards, these princes gave to the papal chair all that tract of land, which had been formerly subject to the Greek emperors. To obtain this gift, it is said, the pope made use of a fictitious donation of Constantine the Great, which, in those barbarous times, was easily imposed upon the ignorant world. By virtue of this grant, the popes pretended to a sovereign jurisdiction over these countries; which the people at first refused to submit to, thinking it very strange, that the pope, who was an ecclesiastical person, should at the same time pretend to be a temporal prince. When, therefore, the Romans mutinied against Leo III., he was forced to seek for assistance from Charles the Great, who restored the pope. On the other hand, the pope and people of Rome proclaimed Charles emperor; whereby he was put in possession of the sovereignty of that part of Italy, which formerly belonged to the governors of Ravenna, and the other remnants of the Western empire; so that the popes afterwards enjoyed these countries under the sovereign jurisdiction of the emperor, who therefore used to be called the patron and defender of the Church, till the reign of the emperor, Henry VI.

The popes at length began to grow weary of the imperial protection, because the emperor’s consent was required in the election of a pope, and, if they were mutinous, the emperors used to check them, and sometimes turn them out of the chair. The popes, therefore, for a long time, employed various artifices to exempt themselves from the power of the emperors. To this end, they frequently raised intestine commotions against them. But the reign of Henry IV. furnished them with an opportunity of putting their designs in execution. For Pope Gregory VII., surnamed Hildebrand, had the boldness to excommunicate this emperor, on pretence that he made a traffic of church benefices, by selling them to all sorts of persons, whom he installed before they had taken orders. And, not satisfied with this, he cited the emperor before him, to answer to the complaints of his subjects, and declared him to have forfeited all right and title to the empire. This obliged the emperor to renounce the right of constituting bishops. And though his son, Henry V., endeavoured to recover what was forcibly taken away from his father, and made Pope Paschal a prisoner, yet were the whole clergy in Europe so dissatisfied, that he was obliged at last to resign the same right again into the pope’s hands. This affair gave rise to the factions of the Guelfs and Ghibelines, the first of which were for the pope, the latter for the emperor. The succeeding emperors found so much work in Germany, that they were not in a condition to look after Italy; whereby the pope had sufficient leisure to make himself sovereign, not only over his own possessions, but over all possessions pertaining to the Church.

But the pope, not satisfied with this degree of grandeur, quickly set on foot a pretension of far greater consequence. For now he pretended to an authority over princes themselves, to command a truce between such as were at war together, to take cognizance of their differences, to put their kingdoms under an interdict, and, if they refused submission to the see of Rome, to absolve their subjects from their allegiance, and to deprive them of their crowns. This has been attempted against many crowned heads, and put in execution against some of them. And for this abominable pretension they pleaded their fictitious decretals, (see Decretals,) which grant to the popes an unlimited power over all Christians whatever. Pope Boniface VIII. gave the world clearly to understand his meaning, at the jubilee kept in the year 1300, when he appeared sometimes in the habit of an emperor, and sometimes in that of a pope, and had two swords carried before him, as the ensigns of the ecclesiastical and civil power.

But the popes could not long enjoy this intolerable usurpation in quiet; for it was often called in question, till they were obliged to desist in part from their pretensions. In particular, Philip the Handsome, king of France, gave several great blows to the papal authority. But the ensuing schisms, and the double elections, when the opposite factions chose two different popes at the same time, contributed most towards weakening the power of the holy see. Hence an occasion was taken to bridle the pope’s authority by general councils, which often proceeded so far as to depose the holy fathers. Therefore it is not to be wondered that, since the Council of Trent, the popes have been very averse to the calling of general councils, and seem to have bid adieu to them for ever. To this may be added, that the translation of the papal chair, by Clement V., from Rome to Avignon, where the popes constantly resided for seventy years together, carried along with it several inconveniences, which proved greatly prejudicial to the ecclesiastical monarchy. Among others, the pope’s authority being founded upon this belief, that St. Peter had been at Rome, and by his presence had communicated a particular prerogative and holiness to that chair, it was very much questioned whether the same could be transferred to Avignon.

But, when the ecclesiastical monarchy seemed to be come to the pinnacle of its grandeur, when all the Western parts were either in communion with, or in obedience to, the Church of Rome, by the influence of the Reformation, the pope became only the spiritual head of a sect, and eventually, as a civil power, of very slight importance.

The manner of the election of a pope is as follows: nine or ten days after the funeral of a deceased pope, the cardinals enter the conclave, which is generally held in the Vatican, in a long gallery, where cells of board are erected, covered with purple cloth, one for each cardinal. (See Conclave.)

The election is made by scrutiny, access, or adoration. The first is, when each cardinal writes the name of him whom he votes for, in a scroll of five pages. On the first is written by one of his servants, that the cardinal may not be discovered by his hand, “Ego eligo in summum pontificem reverendum dominum meum cardinalem.” On this fold two others are doubled down, and sealed with a private seal. On the fourth the cardinal writes his own name, and covers it with the fifth folding. Then, sitting in order on benches in the chapel, with their scrolls in their hands, they go up to the altar by turns, and, after a short prayer on their knees, throw the scroll into a chalice upon the table, the first cardinal bishop sitting on the right hand, and the first cardinal deacon on the left. The cardinals being returned to their places, the cardinal bishop turns out the scrolls into a plate, which he holds in his left hand, and gives them one by one to the cardinal deacon, who reads them with an audible voice, while the cardinals note down how many voices each person has; and then the master of the ceremonies burns the scrolls in a chafing-dish, that it may not be known for whom any one gives his voice. If two-thirds of the number present agree, the election is made, and he, on whom the two-thirds fall, is declared pope.

When the choice is made by access, the cardinals rise from their places, and, approaching him whom they would have elected, say, Ego accedo ad reverendissimum Dominum. The choice by adoration is much after the same manner, only the cardinal approaches him whom he would have chosen with the profoundest reverence. But both the one and the other must be confirmed by the scrutiny.

There has been another way of choosing a pope, namely, by compromise: that is, when the differences have risen so high that they could not be adjusted in the conclave, they have referred the choice to three or five, giving them leave to elect any one, provided it were determined within the time that a candle lighted by common consent should last. Sometimes they have had recourse to what is called inspiration; that is, the first cardinal rises up in chapel, and, after an exhortation to make choice of a capable person, immediately, as if inspired, names one himself: to which, if two-thirds of the cardinals present agree, he is reckoned legally chosen.

When one of the cardinals is chosen pope, the master of the ceremonies comes to his cell, to acquaint him with the news of his promotion. Whereupon he is conducted to the chapel, and clad in the pontifical habit, and there receives the adoration, or the respects paid by the cardinals to the popes. Then, all the gates of the conclave being opened, the new pope shows himself to the people, and blesses them, the first cardinal deacon proclaiming aloud these words: Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum; Papam habemus. Reverendissimus Dominus Cardinalis—electus est in summum Pontificem, et eligit sibi nomen. After this, he is carried to St. Peter’s church, and placed upon the altar of the holy apostles, where the cardinals come a second time to the adoration. Some days after is performed the ceremony of his coronation, before the door of St. Peter’s church, where is erected a throne, upon which the new pope ascends, has his mitre taken off, and a crown put upon his head, in the presence of the people. Afterwards is a grand cavalcade from St. Peter’s church to St. John Lateran, where the archbishop of that church presents the new pope with two keys, one of gold the other of silver.

It is probable that, in the first ages of the Church, the Roman clergy elected the pope; and some think the people had a share in the election. Afterwards, Odoacer, king of the Eruli, and Theodoric, king of the Goths in Italy, would suffer no election of a pope to be made without their consent. But this was abolished in 502, under Pope Symmachus. The succeeding princes, however, reserved to themselves a right to confirm the newly elected pope, who, without this confirmation, could not take possession of the pontificate. The tenth century saw several popes elected and deposed at the fancy of the Roman nobility and Italian princes. But, since the election of Celestin II., in 1443, the cardinals have retained the power of election, independent of the Roman people, or of any sovereign prince whatever.

It is a general maxim, in the choice of a pope, to elect an Italian; which is done, not only because they choose rather to bestow this dignity on a native of Italy than on a foreigner, but also because the security and preservation of the papal chair depends, in a great measure, on the balance which is to be kept between France and Spain: but this is not to be expected from a French or Spanish pope, who would quickly turn the scale, and, by granting too great privileges to his countrymen, endeavour to exclude others from the papal chair. It is also a sort of maxim, to choose a pope who is pretty far advanced in years, that there may be the quicker succession, and that it may not be in the power of a pope, during a long reign, to alter their customs, or, by making his family too powerful, to entail, as it were, the papal chair upon his house. They also take care that he be not too near akin to the deceased pope, that the vacant church benefices may not be engrossed by one family. It often happens, that one is chosen pope, of whom nobody thought before; and this comes to pass, when the cardinals are tired out by so many intrigues, and are glad to get out of the conclave. It is also observed, that a pope often proves quite another man, when he comes to sit in the chair, than that he was before, when only a cardinal.

Ever since the time of Pope Sixtus IV., that is, since the year 1471, the popes have made it their business to enrich their families out of the Church revenues, of which there are very remarkable instances. For it is related that Sixtus V., during a reign of five years, bestowed upon his family above three millions of ducats. The house of the Barbarini, at the death of Urban VIII., was possessed of 227 offices and Church benefices, whereby they amassed thirty millions of scudi.

Sergius III., (A. D. 904,) or Sergius IV., (A. D. 1009,) who was before called Os Porci, i. e. Swine-Face, is said to have been the first pope who changed his name upon his exaltation to the pontificate. This example has been followed by all the popes since his time, and they assume the names of Innocent, Benedict, Clement, &c.

When a pope is elected, they put on him a cassock of white wool, shoes of red cloth, on which is embroidered a gold cross, a mantle of red velvet, the rochet, the white linen albe, and a stole set with pearls. At home, his habit is, a white silk cassock, rochet, and scarlet mantle. In winter his Holiness wears a fur cap; in summer, a satin one. When he celebrates mass, the colour of his habit varies according to the solemnity of the festival. At Whitsuntide, and all festivals of the martyrs, he officiates in red; at Easter, and all festivals of virgins, in white; in Lent, Advent, and eves of fasting days, in violet; and on Easter-eve, and at all masses for the dead, in black. All these colours are typical: the red expresses the cloven tongue, and the blood of the martyrs; the white, the joy caused by our SAVIOUR’S resurrection, and the chastity of virgins; the violet, the pale aspect of those who fast; and the black, grief and mourning.

The pope’s tiara, or crown, is a kind of conic cap, with three coronets, rising one above the other, and adorned with jewels. Paul II. was the first who added the ornaments of precious stones to his crown. The jewels of Clement VIII.’s crown were valued, they say, at 500,000 pieces of gold. That of Martin V. had five pounds and a half weight of pearls in it. “Nor is there anything unreasonable in this, (says Father Bonani,) since the pope governs the kingdom of CHRIST in quality of his viceroy; now this kingdom is infinitely superior to all the empires of the universe. The high priest of the Jews wore on his head and breast the riches which were to represent the majesty of the Supreme GOD. The pope represents that of the SAVIOUR of the world, and nothing better expresses it than riches.” We must not omit, that the two strings of the pontifical tiara represent the two different manners of interpreting the Scriptures, the mystical and the literal.

The pope has two seals. One is called “the fisherman’s ring,” and is the impression of St. Peter holding a line with a bait to it in the water. It is used for those briefs that are sealed with red wax. The other seal is used for the bulls which are sealed with lead, and bears the figures of St. Peter and St. Paul, with a cross on one side, and a bust, with the name of the reigning pope, on the other. Upon the decease of a pope, these seals are defaced and broken by the cardinal Camerlengo, in the presence of three cardinals.

When the pope goes in procession to St. Peter’s, the cross is carried before him on the end of a pike about ten palms long. “Many reasons,” says F. Bonani, “authorize this custom. It is a monument of the sufferings of JESUS CHRIST, and of the pope’s adherence to the SAVIOUR of the world. It is the true mark of the pontifical dignity, and represents the authority of the Church, as the Roman fasces did that of the consuls.” At the same time two grooms bear two fans on each side of his Holiness’s chair, to drive away the flies. This (according to the above-cited author) represents the seraphim covering the face of GOD with their wings.

The custom of kissing the pope’s feet is very ancient; to justify which practice, it is alleged, that the pope’s slipper has the figure of the cross upon the upper leather; so that it is not the pope’s foot, but the cross of CHRIST, which is thus saluted.

There are but few instances of the papal power in England before the Norman Conquest. But the pope, having favoured and supported William I. in his invasion of this kingdom, made that a handle for enlarging his encroachments, and, in that king’s reign, began to send legates hither. Afterwards he prevailed with King Henry I. to part with the right of nominating to bishoprics; and, in the reign of King Stephen, he gained the prerogative of appeals. In the reign of Henry II. he exempted all clerks from the secular power. This king, at first, strenuously opposed his innovation; but, after the death of Becket, who, for having violently opposed the king, was slain by some of the royal adherents, the pope got such an advantage over the king, that he was never able to execute the laws he had made. Not long after this, by a general excommunication of the king and his people, for several years, King John was reduced to such straits, that he surrendered his kingdoms to the pope, to receive them again, and hold them of him under a rent of a thousand marks. In the following reign of Henry III., partly from the profits of our best Church benefices, and partly from the taxes imposed by the pope, there went yearly out of the kingdom to Rome £70,000 sterling. But in the reign of Edward I., it was declared by the parliament, that the pope’s taking upon him to dispose of English benefices to foreigners, was an encroachment not to be endured; and this was followed by the statute of Provisors against popish bulls, and against disturbing any patron, in presenting to a benefice; which was afterwards enacted in Ireland also.

But the pope’s power received a mortal blow in England, by the reformation in religion, begun in the reign of Henry VIII.; since which time, to maintain the pope’s authority here, by writing, preaching, &c., was, till lately, made a premunire upon the first conviction, and high treason upon the second.

POPERY. (See Church of Rome, Council of Trent, Romanism.) By Popery we mean the peculiar system of doctrine, by adopting which the Church of Rome separates herself from the rest of the Catholic Church, and is involved in the guilt of schism. The Church of Rome, or Popery, has departed from the apostles’ doctrine, by requiring all who communicate with her to believe, as necessary to salvation,

1st, That that man is accursed who does not kiss, and honour, and worship the holy images.

2nd, That the Virgin Mary and other saints are to be prayed to.

3rd, That, after consecration in the LORD’S supper, the bread is no longer bread, and the wine no longer wine.

4th, That the clergyman should be excommunicated who, in the sacrament of the LORD’S supper, gives the cup to the people.

5th, That they are accursed who say that the clergy may marry.

6th, That there is a purgatory; that is, a place where souls which had died in repentance are purified by suffering.

7th, That the Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all churches.

8th, That obedience is due from all Churches to the bishop of Rome.

9th, That they are accursed who deny that there are seven sacraments.

From those doctrines, contrary to Scripture and the primitive Church, have resulted these evil practices.

From the veneration of images has sprung the actual worship of them.

The invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and of other saints, has given rise to the greatest blasphemy and profaneness.

The bread in the eucharist has been worshipped as though itself were the eternal GOD.

From the doctrine of purgatory has sprung that of indulgences, and the practice of persons paying sums of money to the Romish bishops and clergy, to release the souls of their friends from the fabulous fire of purgatory.

Popery is a corrupt addition to the truth, and we can give the very dates of the several corruptions.

Attrition, as distinguished from contrition, was first pronounced to be sufficient.

The priest’s right intention was first pronounced to be indispensable to the valid participation of the sacraments, and

Judicial absolution was first publicly authorized, by the Council of Trent, A. D. 1551.

Auricular confession was first enjoined by Innocent III., at the fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.

Apocrypha received as canonical first at the Council of Trent, A. D. 1547.

Compulsory celibacy of the clergy, first enjoined publicly at the first Council of Lateran, A. D. 1123.

Communion in one kind only, first authoritatively sanctioned by the Council of Constance, A. D. 1414.

Use of images and relics in religious worship, first publicly affirmed and sanctioned in the second Council of Nice, A. D. 787.

Invocation of saints_, first taught with _authority by the fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 754.

Papal infallibility was utterly unknown to the third Council of Constantinople, A. D. 680.

Papal supremacy, first publicly asserted by the fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.

Prayers in a foreign tongue, first deliberately sanctioned by the Council of Trent, were expressly forbidden by the fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.

Purgatory and indulgences, first set forth by the Council of Florence, A. D. 1438.

The Roman number of the sacraments was first taught by the Council of Trent, A. D. 1545.

Transubstantiation was first publicly insisted on by the fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.

POPPY HEAD. The ornamental finial of a stall end. In design the poppy heads are extremely various; but they are almost universally made to assume the outline of the fleur-de-lis, to which not only foliage, but figures, faces, and whole groups, are made to conform themselves.

PORCH. A part of the church in which anciently considerable portions of the marriage service and of the baptismal services were performed. Being commenced here they were finished in the church.

POSTILS. A name anciently given to sermons or homilies. The name sprung from the fact that these were usually delivered immediately after reading of the Gospel (quasi post illa, sc. Evangelia). Also, printed expositions of Scripture, from the text being first exhibited, and post illa (after the words of the text) the explication of the writer.

PRÆMUNIRE, in law, is either taken for a form of writ, or for the offence whereon the writ of præmunire is granted. The writ in question is named from its initial words Præmunire facias, and it is chiefly known in ecclesiastical matters from a persecuting use to which it is applied by the statute of 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20, which enacts, that if the dean and chapter refuse to elect the person nominated by the king to the vacant bishopric, or if any archbishop or bishop refuse to confirm or consecrate him, they shall incur the penalties of the statutes of the præmunire. These penalties are no less than the following:—From the moment of conviction, the defendant is out of the king’s protection, his body remains in prison during the king’s pleasure, and all his goods, real or personal, are forfeited to the Crown. He can bring no action, nor recover damages, for the most atrocious injuries, and no man can safely give him comfort, aid, or relief.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION, THE. (From πρᾶγμα, business.) A rescript or answer of the sovereign, declared by advice of his council, to some college, order, or body of people, upon their consulting him in some case of their community.—Hutman.

Referring to the expression historically, the earliest Pragmatic Sanction on record is that drawn up by Louis IX., king of France, in 1268, against the encroachments of the Church and Court of Rome. It related chiefly to the rights of the Gallican Church, with reference to the elections of bishops and clergy. It was superseded in 1438 by the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., which was drawn up at Bourges. This having re-asserted the rights and privileges claimed for the Gallican Church under Louis IX., it accorded with the Council of Basle, at that time sitting, in maintaining that a general council is independent of the pope, and in asserting that all papal bulls should be null and void unless they received the consent of the king. It withheld also the payment of annates. (See Annates.) Pope Pius II. succeeded in obtaining the abrogation of this sanction for a time. But the parliament of Paris refused to approve the conduct of Louis XI. in setting it aside, and he was compelled to restore it to its original influential position. It accordingly remained in full force up to the year 1517, when it was supplanted by the concordat, which was agreed upon between Francis I. and Pope Julius II. Although by the concordat privileges were given and received on both sides, yet the real advantages were on the side of Rome; which advantages it has ever since been her constant aim to improve.

PRAISE. A reverent acknowledgment of the perfections of GOD, and of the blessings flowing from them to mankind, usually expressed in hymns of gratitude and thanksgiving, and especially in the reception of the holy eucharist—that “sacrifice of praise, and sublimest token of our joy.” (See Eucharist.)

PRAXEANISTS. (See Patripassians.)

PRAYER. The offering up of our desires to GOD for things agreeable to his will, in the name of CHRIST, by the aid of his SPIRIT, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies. The necessity of prayer is so universally acknowledged by all who profess and call themselves Christians, and so clearly enjoined in Scripture, that to insist upon this duty—this sacred and pleasant exercise to the renewed in heart—is unnecessary. Prayer is either private or public, and it implies faith in the particular providence of GOD. The general providence of GOD acts through what are called the laws of nature. By his particular providence GOD interferes with those laws, and he hath promised to interfere in behalf of those who pray in the name of JESUS. As we are to shape our labours by ascertaining, through the circumstances under which we are providentially placed, what is the will of GOD with reference to ourselves; as, for example, the husbandman, the professional man, the prince, all labour for different things placed within their reach, and do not labour for that which GOD evidently does not design for them; so we are to regulate our prayers, and we may take it as a general rule, that we may pray for that for which we may lawfully labour, and for that only. And when we pray for what is requisite and necessary for the body or the soul, we are at the same time to exert ourselves. Prayer without exertion is a mockery of GOD, as exertion without prayer is presumption. The general providence of GOD requires that we should exert ourselves, the particular providence of GOD that we should pray.

(For public prayer, see Liturgy and Formulary.)

PRAYER BOOK. (See Liturgy and Formulary.)

PREACHING. Proclaiming or publicly setting forth the truths of religion. Hence the reading of Scripture to the congregation is one branch of preaching, and is so denominated in Acts xv. 21. “Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” See Archbishop King’s valuable Treatise On the Inventions of Men, in which he demonstrates the extensive sense of preaching, as scripturally used; showing that all public services in the church are, in a certain sense, preaching. The term is, however, generally restricted to the delivering of sermons, lectures, &c.

Article XXIII. “It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the LORD’S vineyard.”

In the same convocation in which subscription in the Thirty-nine Articles was imposed upon the clergy, it was enjoined, with respect to preachers: “In the first place, let preachers take care that they never teach anything in the way of preaching, which they wish to be retained religiously and believed by the people, except what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and what the catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from that same doctrine.”—Canon. Eccles. Angl. xix. A. D. 1571.

Canon 36. “No person shall be received into the ministry, nor admitted to any ecclesiastical living, nor suffered to preach, to catechise, or to be a lecturer or reader of divinity in either university, or in any cathedral, or collegiate church, city, or market town, parish church, chapel, or any other place within this realm, except he be licensed either by the archbishop or by the bishop of the diocese where he is to be placed, under their hands and seals, or by one of the two universities under their seal likewise; and except he shall first subscribe to the three articles concerning the king’s supremacy, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-nine Articles (see Orders): and if any bishop shall license any person without such subscription, he shall be suspended from giving licences to preach for the space of twelve months.”

And by the 31 Elizabeth, c. 6. “If any person shall receive or take any money, fee, reward, or any other profit, directly or indirectly, or any promise thereof, either to himself or to any of his friends, (all ordinary and lawfully fees only excepted,) to procure any licence to preach, he shall forfeit £40.”

After the preacher shall be licensed, then it is ordained as follows:

Canon 45. “Every beneficed man, allowed to be a preacher, and residing on his benefice, having no lawful impediment, shall, in his own cure, or in some other church or chapel (where he may conveniently) near adjoining, where no preacher is, preach one sermon every Sunday of the year; wherein he shall soberly and sincerely divide the word of truth, to the glory of GOD, and to the best edification of the people.”

Canon 47. “Every beneficed man, licensed by the laws of this realm (upon urgent occasions of other service) not to reside upon his benefice, shall cause his cure to be supplied by a curate that is a sufficient and licensed preacher, if the worth of the benefice will bear it. But whosoever hath two benefices shall maintain a preacher licensed, in the benefice where he doth not reside, except he preach himself at both of them usually.”

By Canon 50. “Neither the minister, churchwardens, nor any other officers of the Church, shall suffer any man to preach within their churches or chapels, but such as by showing their licence to preach shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorized thereunto, as is aforesaid.”

Canon 51. “The deans, presidents, and residentiaries of any cathedral or collegiate church shall suffer no stranger to preach unto the people in their churches, except they be allowed by the archbishop of the province, or by the bishop of the same diocese, or by either of the universities; and if any in his sermon shall publish any doctrine either strange or disagreeing from the word of GOD, or from any of the Thirty-nine Articles, or from the Book of Common Prayer, the dean or residents shall by their letters, subscribed with some of their hands that heard him, so soon as may be, give notice of the same to the bishop of the diocese, that he may determine the matter, and take such order therein as he shall think convenient.”

Canon 52. “That the bishop may understand (if occasion so require) what sermons are made in every church of his diocese, and who presume to preach without licence, the churchwardens and sidesmen shall see that the names of all preachers which come to their church from any other place be noted in a book, which they shall have ready for that purpose, wherein every preacher shall subscribe his name, the day when he preached, and the name of the bishop of whom he had licence to preach.”

Canon 53. “If any preacher shall in the pulpit particularly, or namely of purpose, impugn or confute any doctrine delivered by any other preacher in the same church, or in any church near adjoining, before he hath acquainted the bishop of the diocese therewith, and received order from him what to do in that case, because upon such public dissenting and contradicting there may grow much offence and disquietness unto the people, the churchwardens or party aggrieved shall forthwith signify the same to the said bishop, and not suffer the said preacher any more to occupy that place which he hath once abused, except he faithfully promise to forbear all such matter of contention in the church, until the bishop hath taken further order therein; who shall with all convenient speed so proceed therein, that public satisfaction may be made in the congregation where the offence was given. Provided, that if either of the parties offending do appeal, he shall not be suffered to preach pendente lite.”

Canon 55. “Before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in this form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may: Ye shall pray for CHRIST’S Holy Catholic Church,” &c. (See Bidding Prayer.)

PREBEND. (Lat. Præbenda.) The stipend which is received by a prebendary, from the revenues of the cathedral or collegiate church with which he is connected. It denoted originally any stipend or reward, given out of the ecclesiastical revenues, to a person who had by his labours procured benefit to the Church; and the gratuity which was given either to a proctor or advocate, or any other person of the like kind. When the cathedral churches became well endowed, they left off receiving the income of their lands into one common bank, and dividing it among the members, but parcelled out the lands into several shares, appropriating them for the maintenance of each single clergyman who resided about the cathedral, calling it Præbenda, or Corpus Præbendæ, the Corps of the Prebend. Hence arose the difference between a prebend and a canonry. A canonry was a right which a person had in a church, to be deemed a member thereof, to have the right of a stall therein, and of giving a vote in the chapter; but a prebend was a right to receive certain revenues appropriated to his place. The number of prebends in the several cathedral churches was increased by the benefactions of respective founders; oftentimes out of the revenues of the rural clergy, and oftentimes by exonerating the lands of prebends from paying tithes to the ministers of the parishes where they lay.—Nicholls.

PREBENDARY. A clergyman attached to a cathedral or collegiate church, who enjoys a prebend in consideration of his officiating at stated times in the church. (See Dean and Chapter.)

In Scotland, there were established by the respective founders in the colleges of St. Salvador, at St. Andrew’s, and King’s College, Aberdeen, certain “Prebendaries, or perpetual chaplains, to sing and serve in the choir” of the chapel. These were, in fact, the same as chaplains in the choral colleges of England.

PRECENTOR. The leader of a choir. The precentor in almost all cathedrals of old foundation in England, and very generally on the continent, was the first dignitary in the chapter, ranking next to the dean. In some few instances the archdeacons preceded him. He superintended the choral service, and the choristers; and in Paris the precentor of Notre Dame had the supervision of the lesser schools in the city, as the chancellor had of the greater. In all the new foundations, except Christ Church in Dublin, where he is a dignitary, the precentor is a minor canon: an anomalous and modern provision. In most ancient cathedrals the precentor had for his badge of office a silver staff or baculus. In choral colleges the precentor is a chaplain. At Llandaff and St. David’s, till very lately, the precentor was presbyteral head of the chapter.

PRECEPTORIES were manors or estates of the Knights Templars, on which they erected churches for religious service, and convenient houses for habitation, and placed some of their fraternity under the government of one of those more eminent Templars, who had been by the grand master created “præceptores templi,” to take care of the lands and rents in that place and neighbourhood: these preceptories were only cells to the Temple, or principal house of the knights, in London. Preceptor was the title of the head of some old hospitals.

PRECES. A general word for prayers; but it is often applied in a technical sense to the shorter sentences, as versicles and suffrages which are said in the way of verse and response. In the English choral service the term is limited to those versicles (with the Gloria Patri) immediately preceding the Psalms, beginning “O LORD, open thou our lips.” These anciently formed a regular part of the harmonized services for cathedral choirs, which were set to music by an earlier musician.—Jebb. (See Responses, Versicles, and Service.)

PREDESTINATION. (See Election; see also Calvinism and Arminianism.) Of predestination and election our 17th Article thus speaks: “Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of GOD, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in CHRIST out of mankind, and to bring them by CHRIST to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of GOD, be called according to GOD’S purpose, by his SPIRIT working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of GOD by adoption; they be made like the image of his only-begotten SON JESUS CHRIST; they walk religiously in good works; and at length, by GOD’S mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of predestination and our election in CHRIST is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of CHRIST, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through CHRIST, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards GOD: so, for curious and carnal persons lacking the Spirit of CHRIST, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of GOD’S predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive GOD’S promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that will of GOD is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of GOD.”

Such is the barrier which the Church places between this solemn subject and irreverent inquiries; but the Scripture doctrine of predestination may be further stated without any forgetfulness of the spirit here inculcated. We are told indeed by the Church, that “the godly consideration of predestination and our election in CHRIST is full of sweet and unspeakable comfort to godly persons” (Art. xvii.); and it is certain that it can be full neither of profit nor of comfort, unless we meditate upon it. And if it be among the things “hard to be understood,” (2 Pet. iii. 16,) this is no reason why we should not try to understand it, and, by understanding, cease to be “unlearned and unstable,” and so take care that it shall not be wrested to our destruction.

In the first chapter to the Ephesians, we find that there are certain persons whom GOD hath chosen in CHRIST, before the foundation of the world; having predestinated them unto the adoption of children of JESUS CHRIST to himself, not on account of their good works, but according to the good pleasure of his will. (Eph. i. 4, 5.) Again, in another Epistle, we are told that GOD hath “called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in CHRIST JESUS before the world began.” (2 Tim. i. 9.) These are persons whose names are said to have been written in heaven, in the book of life, called the LAMB’S book of life, (Rev. xx. 15; xxi. 27,) because the first among GOD’S elect is he who, being GOD as well as man, is the Lamb of GOD, slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. xiii. 8) as a propitiation for sins. (1 John ii. 2; iv. 10.) Thus, then, we see that there are persons who, in the words of St. Paul, are “vessels which GOD hath afore prepared unto glory.” (Rom. ix. 22–24.)

And now comes the question, Who are those who are thus predestinated to the glories of the new heaven, the new earth, the new Jerusalem, which is to come down from above? (Rev. xxi. 2.) Let St. Paul give the answer: “Whom he did predestinate, them he also called” (Rom. viii. 30): called by the circumstances under which he providentially placed them, either by the appearance, in the first ages, of an apostle or an evangelist; or, as is the case with us, by the fact of our being born in a Christian land: “and whom he called, them he also justified;” receiving them, for CHRIST’S sake, as his own children in holy baptism, he justified, or, for the same SAVIOUR’S sake, counted as holy, those who as yet were not actually so: “and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” He glorified them by regenerating them, and making them temples of the HOLY GHOST (1 Cor. vi. 11, 19); than which what greater glory can pertain to the sons of men?

The foregoing passage furnishes us with a description of Christians, of baptized persons; and consequently to Christians we are to refer those other passages which relate to GOD’S predestination: them GOD hath predestinated to glory. And as such, as GOD’S elect people, predestinated not merely to means of grace, for this were clearly inadequate, but to glory in the kingdom of glory, the inspired writers were wont to address the multitude of the baptized. Thus the apostle addresses the Church of the Thessalonians, good and bad commingled, as “knowing” their “election of GOD.” (1 Thess. i. 4.) Thus St. Peter speaks of “the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” as “elect according to the foreknowledge of GOD the FATHER” (1 Pet. i. 2); and he speaks of them afterwards as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people;” and St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, addresses the Hebrews, meaning those who had made profession of the Christian faith, as “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.” Such, then, is our blessing, our privilege, our high hope as Christians. In the temple of the first Jerusalem there was a variety of chambers or mansions, employed for different purposes, though all relating directly or indirectly to the services of the sanctuary. In the new Jerusalem, which will itself be the temple of the universe, there will in like manner be “many mansions” or chambers: but if so, those mansions or chambers in the earthly Jerusalem having been intended for a variety of different offices, we may conclude that offices of different characters will exist in the new Jerusalem. It is very possible that we are not only each of us predestined to heaven, but predestined also each to our own particular place in heaven, that our very mansion is fixed. We know that GOD has predestinated particular persons to particular offices here on earth, long before their birth: as, for example, in the case of Jeremiah, GOD saith, “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth of the womb, I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the nation.” And so with respect also to St. Paul, we are told that it “pleased GOD to separate him from his mother’s womb, that he might preach CHRIST among the heathen.” (Gal. i. 15, 16.) Nay, we find that this is really to be the case with respect to the next world, in some cases at least; for example, when the SON of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, the apostles shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28): a particular office is allotted to them; to a particular office they are predestinated. When the mother of Zebedee’s children prayed that her children might sit, the one on the right hand, and the other on the left, in our LORD’S kingdom of glory, our LORD said, “to sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give.” (Matt. xx. 23.) No. These places are designed for certain persons who are preparing, or shall be prepared, to fill the same. This is already fixed in the counsels of GOD. These places, therefore, are not mine to give. They are already given. Your place is also designated: prepare for it by doing your duty. We know that some of the saints are predestinated to a mysterious office, the nature of which we cannot understand, but they will judge angels. (1 Cor. vi. 2, 3.) And at the last day shall the King say unto them that are on his right hand, “Come, ye blessed of my FATHER, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. xxv. 34.)

But this predestination to glory is, like our election, conditional. We shall not only be saved, but we shall occupy a predestined post of glory, if we escape condemnation at the day of judgment; not otherwise. The omission of all reference to the day of judgment is the vice of the Calvinistic system. The man, condemned at the day of judgment, will find an addition to his pangs, by knowing the glory to which he had been predestined, had he not perverted his ways. But if our sins are then found blotted out by the blood of the LAMB, we know that a certain place in heaven is designed for us, for which we are shaped and prepared by the circumstances under which we are placed while on earth. (See Bishop Pearson’s 23 and 24 Lectiones “de Prædestinatione” in Archdeacon Churton’s edition of his minor Works.)

PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, OUR LORD. (See Generation.) His existence before he was born of the Virgin Mary, and even before the creation of the world by him. The fact is stated thus by Bishop Bull in his “Defence of the Nicene Creed:”—All the catholic doctors of the first three centuries taught, that JESUS CHRIST, he who was afterwards so called, existed before he became man, or before he was born, according to the flesh, of the Blessed Virgin, in another nature, far more excellent than the human nature; that he appeared to holy men, giving them an earnest, as it were, of his incarnation; that he always presided over, and provided for, the Church, which in time to come he would redeem with his own blood; and of consequence that, from the beginning, the whole order or thread of the Divine dispensation, as Tertullian speaks, ran through him: further yet, that he was with the FATHER before the foundations of the world, and that by him all things were made.

PREFACES. Certain short occasional forms in the Communion Service, which are introduced by the priest, on particular festivals, immediately before the anthem, beginning, “Therefore with angels and archangels,” &c. This anthem is a song of praise, or an act of profound adoration, equally proper at all times; but the Church calls upon us more especially to use it on her chief festivals, in remembrance of those events which are then celebrated. Thus, on Christmas Day, the priest having said—“It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O LORD, Holy FATHER, Almighty, everlasting GOD,”—adds the proper preface which assigns the reason for peculiar thankfulness on that particular day, viz. “Because thou didst give JESUS CHRIST, thine only SON, to be born as at this time for us; who, by the operation of the HOLY GHOST, was made very man, of the Virgin Mary his mother, and that without spot of sin, to make us clean from all sin: therefore, with angels, &c.” The days for which these prefaces are provided are, Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and seven days after each of these festivals; also Whitsunday, and six days after; together with Trinity Sunday. The antiquity of such prefaces may be estimated from the fact that they are mentioned and enjoined by the 103rd canon of the African code, which code was formed of the decisions of many councils prior to the date of 418.

The decay of devotion let fall the apostolical and primitive use of daily and weekly communions, and the people in the later ages did not receive but at the greater festivals: upon which custom there were added to the general preface mentioned, before some special prefaces relating to the peculiar mercy of that feast on which they did communicate, the Church thinking it fit, that, since every festival was instituted to remember some great mercy, therefore they who received on such a day, besides the general praises offered for all GOD’S mercies, should at the LORD’S table make a special memorial of the mercy proper to that festival; and this seemed so rational to our reformers, that they have retained those proper prefaces which relate to Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday, so as to praise GOD for the mercies of CHRIST’S birth, resurrection, and ascension, for the sending the HOLY GHOST, and for the true faith of the holy TRINITY.—Dean Comber.

Our LORD himself, before he brake the bread and distributed it, gave thanks; and the Church has thought fit to do the same thing. But, because our LORD has not prescribed any set form for this, but used one agreeable to the thing and the time, the Church therefore, as matters and occasion required, has accordingly adapted peculiar forms of prayer and thanksgiving, suited, as St. Augustine says, to the diversity of festival days, in which different benefits are commemorated.—Bp. Cosin.

On the greater festivals there are proper prefaces appointed, which are also to be repeated, in case there be a communion, for seven days after the festivals themselves (excepting that of Whitsunday, which is to be repeated only six days after, because Trinity Sunday, which is the seventh, hath a preface peculiar to itself); to the end that the mercies may be the better remembered by often repetition, and also that all the people (who in most places cannot communicate all in one day) may have other opportunities, within those eight days, to join in praising GOD for such great blessings.

2. The reason of the Church’s lengthening out these high feasts for several days is plain: the subject-matter of them is of so high a nature, and so nearly concerns our salvation, that one day would be too little to meditate upon them, and praise GOD for them as we ought. A bodily deliverance may justly require one day of thanksgiving and joy; but the deliverance of the soul by the blessings commemorated on these times, deserves a much longer time of praise and acknowledgment. Since, therefore, it would be injurious to Christians to have their joy and thankfulness for such mercies confined to one day, the Church, upon the times when these unspeakable blessings were wrought for us, invites us, by her most seasonable commands and counsels, to fill our hearts with joy and thankfulness, and let them overflow eight days together.

3. The reason of their being fixed to eight days is taken from the practice of the Jews, who by GOD’S appointment observed their greater festivals, some of them for seven, and one, namely, the feast of Tabernacles, for eight days. And therefore the primitive Church, thinking that the observation of Christian festivals (of which the Jewish feasts are only types and shadows) ought not to come short of them, lengthened out their higher feasts to eight days.—Bp. Sparrow. Wheatly.

These prefaces are very ancient, though there were some of them, as they stood in the Latin service, of later date. For as there are ten in that service, whereof the last, concerning the Virgin Mary, was added by Pope Urban, 1095, so it follows that the rest must be of a more considerable antiquity. Our Church has only retained five, and those upon the principal festivals of the year, which relate only to the persons of the ever-blessed Trinity, and not to any saint.—Dr. Nicholls.

Mr. Palmer remarks that “the repetition by the people of the portion of the Preface, beginning ‘therefore with angels,’ never was the custom of the primitive Church, and could not have been intended by those who revised our liturgy, nor is it warranted by the nature of the Preface itself. It has perhaps,” he adds, “arisen from the custom of printing the latter part of the Preface in connexion with the hymn Tersanctus, and from the indistinctness of the rubric, which, in fact, gives no special direction for the people to join in repeating the hymn Tersanctus.” It may be remarked that the Tersanctus is marked as a separate paragraph in the two books of King Edward VI.

With respect to the Preface, there is an ambiguity in our rubrics, but none whatever in the choral usage, which is in accordance with the universal practice of the Church. The Preface is that part recited by the priest, beginning with “It is very meet, right,” &c., ending with “evermore praising thee and saying.” It is commonly imagined that the choir or congregation are to repeat with the priest the words, “Therefore with angels and archangels,” &c.; but this is contrary to all precedent. The choral communion services, and the one of Durham, all agree in beginning the hymn at the words, “Holy, holy, holy,” &c. The rubric merely says, “After each of which Prefaces shall immediately be sung or said;” it does not say by whom. The direction is as indeterminate as that of the Litany, which, like the passage in question, is sung distributively between minister and people in sequence.—Jebb.

PRELATE. An ecclesiastic having jurisdiction over other ecclesiastics. The title, though applicable to bishops, is not confined to their order. Before the Reformation abbots were styled prelates. Archdeacons are prelates in this sense of the word. (See Episcopacy, Bishop.)

PRELECTOR. A Lecturer. In the cathedral of Hereford, one of the prebendaries is elected to the office of Prelector, to hold it till he succeeds to a residentiary canonry, for which he is statutably considered to have a claim to be a candidate. His duty is to preach on Tuesdays, or else on any holiday which may occur during the week for a considerable portion of the year.

PREMONSTRATENSES. (Lat.) In French, Prémontrés. A religious order, founded by St. Norbert, descended from a noble family in the diocese of Cologne. He was educated suitably to his quality, and lived for some time at the emperor Henry the Fifth’s court. At about thirty years of age he was ordained deacon and priest; and, soon after, entering upon a very strict and mortified way of living, he resigned his church preferments, and distributed a large patrimonial estate to the poor. Then he embraced the rule of St. Augustine, and retiring with thirteen companions to a place called Premonstratum, in the diocese of Laon, in Picardy, he there began his order, about the year 1119. This ground, with the chapel of St. John Baptist, was given to St. Norbert by the bishop of Laon, with the approbation of Louis le Gros, king of France, who gave the Premonstratenses a charter of privileges. The place was called Premonstratum, because it was pretended the Blessed Virgin herself pointed out (premonstravit) this place for the principal house of the order, and at the same time commanded them to wear a white habit.

The monks of this order were, at first, so poor, that they had nothing they could call their own but one poor ass, which served them to carry wood, which they cut down every morning and sent to Laon, where it was sold to purchase bread. But, in a short time, they received so many donations, and built so many monasteries, that, thirty years after the foundation of this order, they had above one hundred abbeys in France and Germany.

The popes and kings of France have granted many privileges, and been very liberal, to the Premonstratenses. Besides a great number of saints, who have been canonized, this order has had several persons of distinguished birth, who have been contented with the humble condition of lay-brothers: as, Guy, earl of Brienne; Godfrey, earl of Namur, &c. It has likewise given the Church a great number of archbishops and bishops.

The order of Premonstratenses increased so greatly, that it had monasteries in all parts of Christendom, amounting to 1000 abbeys, 300 provostships, a vast number of priories, and 500 nunneries. These were divided into 30 cyrcaries or provinces. But this number of houses is greatly diminished; for, of 65 abbeys it had in Italy, there is not one remaining at present; not to mention the loss of all their monasteries in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, Scotland, and Ireland.

These monks, vulgarly called White Canons, came first into England in the year 1146, where their first monastery, called New House, was built in Lincolnshire, by Peter de Saulia, and dedicated to St. Martialis. In the reign of Edward I., when that king granted his protection to the monasteries, the Premonstratenses had twenty-seven houses in this kingdom.

PREROGATIVE COURT. The Prerogative Court of the archbishops of Canterbury and Armagh, is that court wherein all testaments are proved, and all administrations granted, when a party dying within the province has bona notubilia in some other diocese than where he dies; and is so called from having a prerogative throughout the whole province for the said purposes. (See Canons 92, 93, &c.)

PRE-SANCTIFIED. A word used by the Greek Church, who have a liturgy called that of the Presanctified, because that upon those days they do not consecrate the bread or wine, but receive the bread which was consecrated the day before. This service is observed all Lent long, except Saturdays and Sundays, and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, which, being festivals, are exempt from fasting; the Greeks being of opinion that the whole communion service is not to be celebrated on fasting days, and upon this account charging the Latin Church with breach of the canons, because they celebrate the eucharist in Lent time, as they do the rest of the year, Good Friday excepted; for on that day this liturgy of the Presanctified is offered in the Latin Church; the priest then consecrating neither bread nor wine, but making use of the bread which was consecrated the day before, and communicating only under one kind; for the wine he receives is only for ablution, being unconsecrated. The Greeks do the same thing, from whence we may conclude that they communicate only in one kind during Lent, the wine that they then receive being not consecrated. The Communion of the Sick, as enjoined by the First Book of King Edward, if administered on any day of public communion, was a liturgy of the pre-sanctified; as the elements were not consecrated in the private house, but previously in the church.

PRESBYTER. (See Bishop, Deacon, Priest, Orders, Clergy.) The name πρεσβύτερος (elder) is a word borrowed from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which commonly signifies a ruler or governor, being, as St. Jerome observes, a name of office, not a mere indication of a man’s age; for elders were chosen, not by their age, but by their merits and wisdom. So that, as a senator among the Romans, and an alderman in our own language, signifies a person of such an order and station without any regard to age, in like manner a presbyter or elder in the Christian Church is one who is ordained to a certain office, and authorized by his quality, not his age, to discharge the several duties of that office and station in which he is placed. In this large and extensive sense, bishops were sometimes called presbyters in the New Testament, for the apostles themselves did not refuse that title. On the other hand, it is the opinion of many learned men, both ancient and modern, that presbyters were sometimes called bishops, while bishops who were properly such were distinguished by other titles, as that of chief priests, apostles, &c. Bingham shows, however, that those who maintained the identity of the names, did not thence infer identity of offices, but always esteemed bishops and presbyters to be distinct officers.

We know not the exact period at which the apostles first ordained presbyters. We do not read of their existence before A. D. 43, when the disciples at Antioch sent their collections to the presbyters of Judea. About A. D. 56, St. Paul sent for “the presbyters of the church” of Ephesus; and we afterwards read of bishops or presbyters at Philippi: and the directions to Timothy and Titus for their ordination in every city; the exhortation of St. Peter to “the presbyters;” and of St. James, “is any one sick among you, let him send for the presbyters of the church;” suffice to prove the general ordination of presbyters by the apostles.

The office of presbyters, like that of bishops, consisted in “feeding the Church of GOD,” and overseeing it; exhorting and convincing the gainsayers by sound doctrine. Being invested with the power of teaching, they also possessed authority in controversies. The Church of Antioch sent to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and “presbyters” on the question of circumcision; and we find afterwards that heretics were sometimes condemned by the judgment of presbyters, as well as by bishops in councils. They possessed in their degree the power of remitting or retaining sins by absolution, and by spiritual censures. They must, even at the beginning, have had the power of baptizing and celebrating the eucharist, of performing other rites, and offering up public prayers in the absence of the apostles, or by their permission; and the institution of bishops in every Church by the apostles only restrained the ordinary exercise of these powers. We know in particular from St. James, that presbyters had authority to visit the sick and offer prayers, anointing them with oil for the recovery of their health. From the time of the apostles, the office of public teaching in the Church, and of administering the sacraments, was always performed by the bishop, unless in cases of great necessity. The power of spiritual jurisdiction in each Church, of regulating its affairs generally, and especially its discipline, was shared by the bishop with the presbyters, who also instructed and admonished the people in private. The presbyters sat on seats or thrones at the east end of the church, and the bishop on a higher throne in the midst of them. In some churches they laid their hands with the bishops on the head of those who were ordained presbyters, and in others administered confirmation.

The wealth and temporal power of bishops during the middle ages may have induced some of the ignorant to suppose that presbyters were exceedingly inferior to bishops; but the Catholic Church, which sees with the eye of faith, as she acknowledges the same sacred dignity of the priesthood in every bishop, whether oppressed with extreme poverty, or whether invested with princely dignity and wealth, also views the greatness and the sanctity of the office of presbyter as little inferior to those even of the chief pastors who succeeded the apostles; and the Church has never flourished more, nor has the episcopate ever been held in truer reverence, than under the guidance of those apostolical prelates who, like St. Cyprian, resolved to do nothing without the consent of the clergy, and who have sedulously avoided even the appearance of “being lords over GOD’S heritage.” The spirit of a genuine Christianity will lead the presbyters to reverence and obey the bishops as their fathers; and will induce bishops to esteem the presbyters as fellow-workers together with them, and brethren in JESUS CHRIST.—Bingham. Palmer. Augusti.

The word presbyter is substituted for priest in the Scotch liturgy, compiled in the reign of King Charles I.

PRESBYTERIANS. A Protestant sect, which maintains that there is no order in the Church superior to presbyters, and on that account has separated from the Catholic Church. This sect is established by law in Scotland, where there nevertheless exists a national branch of the Catholic Church, under canonical bishops. The establishment of a sect cannot, of course, convert that sect into a Church: for instance, if the Socinian sect were established in England, it would not be a whit more a Church than it is at present. (See Church in Scotland.)

The Presbyterians had many endowed chapels in England, but the trustees and ministers having become Socinians, these endowed chapels, upwards of 170 in number, are the strongholds of Socinianism and Rationalism in this country. In England, Socinian and Presbyterian have thus become synonymous terms. These observations do not, however, apply to the meeting-houses in England of the Scotch Presbyterians.

The following statement is taken from the Registrar’s return:

“The Scottish Kirk adopts the Confession, Catechism, and Directory prepared by the Westminster Assembly as its standards of belief and worship. Its discipline is administered by a series of four courts or assemblies. (1.) The Kirk Session is the lowest court, and is composed of the minister of a parish and a variable number of lay elders, appointed from time to time by the session itself. (2.) The Presbytery consists of representatives from a certain number of contiguous parishes, associated together in one district. The representatives are the ministers of all such parishes and one lay elder from each. This assembly has the power of ordaining ministers and licensing probationers to preach, before their ordination: it also investigates charges respecting the conduct of members, approves of new communicants, and pronounces excommunication against offenders. An appeal, however, lies to the next superior court; viz. (3.) The Provincial Synod, which comprises several presbyteries, and is constituted by the ministers and elders by whom these presbyteries themselves were last composed. (4.) The General Assembly is the highest court, and is composed of representatives (ministers and elders) from the presbyteries, royal burghs, and universities of Scotland, to the number (at present) of 363; of which number rather more than two-fifths are laymen.

“The National Church of Scotland has three presbyteries in England; that of London, containing five congregations,—that of Liverpool and Manchester, containing three congregations,—and that of the North of England, containing eight congregations.

“Various considerable secessions have from time to time occurred in Scotland from the National Church, of bodies which, while holding Presbyterian sentiments, dissent from the particular mode in which they are developed by the Established Kirk, especially protesting against the mode in which Church patronage is administered, and against the undue interference of the civil power. The principal of these seceding bodies are,—the ‘United Presbyterian Church,’ and the ‘Free Church of Scotland;’ the former being an amalgamation (effected in 1847) of the ‘Secession Church’ (which separated in 1732) with the ‘Relief Synod’ (which seceded in 1752); and the latter having been constituted in 1843.

“The ‘United Presbyterian Church’ has five presbyteries in England, containing seventy-six congregations; of which, however, fourteen are locally in Scotland, leaving the number locally in England 62.

“The ‘Free Church of Scotland’ has no ramifications, under that name, in England; but various Presbyterian congregations which accord in all respects with that community, and which, before the disruption of 1843, were in union with the Established Kirk, compose a separate Presbyterian body under the appellation of the ‘Presbyterian Church in England,’ having, in this portion of Great Britain, seven presbyteries and eighty-three congregations.”

PRESBYTERIUM, or PRESBYTERY, the space in collegiate and large churches between the easternmost stalls of the choir and the altar; answering to the solea of the ancient basilicas.

PRESENCE. (See Real Presence.)

PRESENTATION, (see Patron and Benefice,) is the offering of a clerk to the bishop by the patron of a benefice. It differs from nomination in this, that while presentation signifies the offering a clerk to the bishop for institution, nomination signifies offering a clerk to the patron in order that he may be presented.

PRIEST. (See Orders, Ordination, Presbyter, Sacrifice, and Absolution.) Who can deny that our word priest is corrupted of presbyter? Our ancestors, the Saxons, first used preoster; whence, by further contraction, came preste and priest. The High and Low Dutch have priester; the French, prestre [now contracted into prêtre]; the Italian, prete; but the Spaniard only speaks full, presbytero.—Joseph Mede.

The Greek and Latin words, (ἱερεύς, sacerdos,) which we translate “priest,” are derived from words that signify holy: and so the word priest, according to the etymology, signifies him whose mere charge and function is about holy things; and therefore seems to be a most proper word to him who is set apart to the holy public service and worship of GOD, especially when he is in the actual ministration of holy things. If it be objected that, according to the usual acceptation of the word, it signifies him that offers up a sacrifice, and therefore cannot be allowed to a minister of the gospel, who hath no sacrifice to offer, it is answered, that the ministers of the gospel have sacrifices to offer, (1 Pet. ii. 5,) “Ye are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices” of prayer, praises, thanksgiving, &c. In respect of these, the ministers of the gospel may safely, in a metaphorical sense, be called priests; and in a more eminent manner than other Christians, because they are taken from among men to offer up these sacrifices for others. But besides these spiritual sacrifices mentioned, the ministers of the gospel have another sacrifice to offer, viz. the “unbloody sacrifice,” as it was anciently called, the commemorative sacrifice of the blood of CHRIST, which does as really and truly show forth the death of CHRIST, as those sacrifices under the law did; and in respect of this sacrifice of the eucharist, the ancients have usually called those that offer it up, priests.—Fludyer’s Comm.

That it might not be doubted by whom the form of absolution may be pronounced, the rubric expressly informs us, that it is the priest who officiates. By priest, in Church language, is understood a person who is advanced in the ecclesiastical orders to the dignity of a presbyter; and no person, in any age of the Church, who was under this degree, did ever pretend, as of right, to pronounce absolution. The penitentiaries, in the ancient and more modern ages of the Church, were always of this degree. It was adopted into an axiom in the canon law, “ejus est absolvere cujus est ligare.” No one could pronounce absolution but he who had power to excommunicate. In the body of that law, absolutions of all kinds are reserved either to presbyters or bishops; and in our provincial constitutions it is strictly enjoined, “de pœnitentia præcipimus quod diaconi pœnitentias dare non presumant,” unless the priest be away when a man is dying.—Lyndwood. Our Church, in the last review of the liturgy, has chosen to put in the word priest instead of minister, (which was in King Edward VI.’s Second Book, and in Queen Elizabeth’s,) to the end that no one might pretend to pronounce this but one in priest’s orders; being sensible that some bold innovations have been made herein, by reason of some persons misunderstanding or misapplying the word minister. But the first compilers of the Common Prayer understood the same by minister as we do now by priest, that being the general acceptation of the word at that time. The compilers of the Second Book of Edward VI. (in which the Confession and Absolution were first inserted) put into the rubric, “to be pronounced by the minister” (or priest) “alone,” to avoid the imputation which the Papists had charged some of the reformed with, for permitting absolution to be pronounced by persons not of this order. For in the provincial Council of Sens, A. D. 1528, which was before that of Trent, and twenty years before the compiling our Common Prayer, we find the Protestants found fault with for affirming, that laics and women among them might pronounce absolution; which indeed was Luther’s opinion, but only so (as Chemnitius explains it) that in case of extreme necessity they might use it; which doctrine he had from the Papists themselves.—Nicholls; and see his long note on the subject, if necessary, in his “Commentary on the Common Prayer,” Evening Service.

In the diocese of Alexandria, the privilege of giving absolution to great criminals and scandalous offenders was reserved to the patriarch; as appears in the case of Lamponianus, an excommunicated presbyter. “Though,” says he, “he expressed his repentance with tears, and the people interceded for him, yet I refused to absolve him; only assuring this, that if he should be in manifest danger of death, any presbyter should receive him into communion by my order.” And in general, in the primitive Church, the granting absolution to reconcile penitents, was the bishop’s sole prerogative, and rarely committed to presbyters; but never to deacons, except in cases of extreme necessity, when neither bishop nor presbyter was at hand.—Bingham.

The privilege was also allowed in times of persecution, to martyrs and confessors in prison; but then they always signified what they had done to the bishop.—See Cave’s Prim. Ch.

At the last review of the Common Prayer Book, A. D. 1661, the Presbyterian divines requested that “as the word minister, and not priest or curate, is used in the Absolution, and in divers other places, it may throughout the whole book be so used, instead of those two words.” To which the Episcopalian commissioners replied, that “it is not reasonable the word minister should be only used in the liturgy. For since some parts of the liturgy may be performed by a deacon, and others, such as absolution and consecration, by none under the order of a priest, it is fit that some such word as priest should be used for those offices, and not minister, which signifies at large every one that ministers in that holy office, of what order soever he be.” Accordingly the word “priest,” in its exclusive sense, and in contradistinction to the word deacon, was inserted, and the sense of the Church of England on this subject, ascertained through the objection made by the Presbyterian divines, was adopted and ratified by the act of parliament.

In the primitive Church, the deacons were ranked among the “sacred orders;” and though their office has not always been so accurately defined as that of the presbyters, or priests, yet in the Church of England they are to most purposes considered as an inferior degree of “the priesthood.” Their duties are laid down in the office of “the Form and Manner of making Deacons;” and, “for the resolution of all doubts,” the preface to the Book of Common Prayer has wisely directed, that “the parties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall always resort to the bishop of the diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; so that the same order be not contrary to anything contained in this book.”

It has generally been customary for deacons to substitute a prayer taken from the liturgy, which has been usually one of the collects in the conclusion of the Communion Service; and a pious commentator (Mr. Waldo) countenances this by saying, “a deacon, when he officiates, is never to use it, but is to offer up some short prayer in its stead.” But this is improperly said. For if a deacon, an officiating minister of the lowest order, may be considered at liberty to make this alteration in breach of the act for uniformity, where is the point at which he shall stop? What in this case he should do seems settled by the authorities referred to by Shepherd.

“If a deacon is neither to read the Absolution, nor to substitute a prayer in its room, what is he to do? The rule is plain, and leaves him no alternative. After the confession, he is to remain kneeling, and to proceed to the LORD’S Prayer. This always appeared to me to be the necessary and only conclusion to be drawn from the premises. Suspecting, however, the validity of my own arguments, I requested the opinion of a respectable divine, for whose modesty I have such regard, that I dare describe him only as having been, for many years, the confidential and intimate friend of Bishop Lowth. By his judgment, the opinion already given was sanctioned and confirmed. In consequence of further inquiry, I have since learned, that the heads of a cathedral church lately recommended the same practice. It is the business of priest vicars, I understand, in some cathedrals, to read morning and evening prayer; and it once happened, that a deacon was appointed a priest vicar. When it came to his turn to officiate, he was directed to omit the Absolution, and after the confession to say the LORD’S Prayer.”—Shepherd.

PRIEST’S INTENTION. (See Intention.)

PRIMATES, or METROPOLITANS. In the Christian hierarchy, or scheme of Church government, are such bishops of a province, as preside over the rest.

Some derive the original of primates or metropolitans from apostolical constitution.—Bingham, Orig. Eccles. b. ii. c. 16. But it may be doubted, whether the apostles made any such general settlement in every province; and the records of the original of most churches being lost, it can never be proved that they did. It is most probable, that this order of bishops commenced not long after the apostolic age, when sects and schisms began to break in apace, and controversies multiplying between particular bishops, it was found necessary to pitch upon one in every province, to whom the decision of cases might be referred, and by whom all common and public affairs might be directed. Or, it might take its rise from that common respect and deference, which was usually paid by the rest of the bishops to the bishop of the metropolis, or capital city, of each province: which advancing into a custom, was afterwards settled by a canon of the Council of Nice.—Conc. Nic. c. 6.

As to the offices and privileges of primates or metropolitans, they were as follows. First, they were to regulate the elections of all their provincial bishops, and either ordain, or authorize the ordination of them: and no election or ordination of bishops was valid without their approbation. Nor was this power at all infringed by setting up the patriarchs above them. For, though the metropolitans were to be ordained by the patriarchs, yet still the right of ordaining their own suffragans was preserved to them. It is to be observed, that this power was not arbitrary: for the primates had no negative voice in the matter, but were to be determined and concluded by the major part of a provincial synod.—Conc. Chalced. Act. 16.

Their next office was, to preside over the provincial bishops, and, if any controversies arose among them, to interpose their authority to end and decide them: also to hear the accusations of others, who complained of injury done to them by their own bishops, from whom there was always liberty of appeal to the metropolitan. But still there lay an appeal from the metropolitan to a provincial synod, of which he was only the president or moderator.

A third office of the metropolitans or primates was, to call provincial synods, and preside in them. To this end, their circular letters, called Synodicæ and Tractoriæ, were a legal summons, which no bishop of the province might disobey under pain of suspension, or other canonical censure, at the discretion of the metropolitan and council.

Fourthly, it belonged to the primates to publish and disperse such imperial laws and canons, as were made either by the emperors or the councils, for the common good of the Church. This gave them a right to visit, and inquire into neglects, abuses, and disorders, committed by any bishop throughout the whole province.

Fifthly, bishops, when they travelled into foreign countries on extraordinary occasions, used to consult the primate, and take his Formatæ, or letters of commendation. This was particularly required of the African bishops by the third Council of Carthage.

A sixth branch of the metropolitan office was, to take care of all vacant sees within their province, by administering the affairs of the Church, securing the revenues of the bishopric, and procuring a speedy election of a new bishop.

Seventhly, it belonged to the metropolitans, yearly to review the calculation of the time of Easter, and give notice to their suffragans of it. The care of composing the cycle was, indeed, by the Nicene fathers particularly committed to the bishop of Alexandria. But due care not being always taken in this matter, the metropolitan in every province was concerned to settle the time, and acquaint the whole province with it.

The primate of Alexandria was the greatest metropolitan in the world, both for the absoluteness of his power, and the extent of his jurisdiction. For he was not metropolitan of a single province, but of all the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, in which there were at least six large provinces, out of which above an hundred bishops were called to a provincial synod.

Besides an actual primacy of power, there was likewise a primacy of honour; that is, some bishops had the name and title of primates, but not the jurisdiction. Of these there were three sorts. First, the senior bishops in each province, next to the metropolitan. These primates had no power above others, except when the metropolitans were some way disabled, or disqualified for discharging their office, by irregularity or suspension. In this case, their power devolved on the senior bishop of the province.

The second sort of honorary primates were the titular metropolitans, or bishops of such cities as had the name and title of metropolis bestowed on them by some emperor, without the privileges, which were still continued to the ancient metropolis of the province. Of this sort were the cities of Chalcedon and Nice.

Thirdly, some bishops were honoured with the title of primates, in regard to the eminency of their see, being some mother-church, or particularly honoured by ancient prescription. This was the case of the bishop of Jerusalem, in consideration of its being the mother-church of the Christian world.

The division of England into two provinces, Canterbury and York, in 1152, gave occasion to the introducing primacies among us. Canterbury, which before was the metropolis, gives to its bishop the title of Primate of all England; York, only that of Primate of England. Accordingly, the former has some jurisdiction over all England, which the latter has only in his own province.

The archbishop of Armagh is primate of all Ireland; of Dublin, that of Ireland. Until the late mutilation of the Irish branch of the Church, the archbishop of Cashel was primate of Munster; of Tuam, primate of Connaught. The archbishop of St. Andrew’s was primate of Scotland. The archbishop of Rheims is primate of France; of Rouen, primate of Normandy; of Lyons, primate of Gaul; of Toledo, primate of Spain, &c.

PRIME. The service said at sunrising. (See Canonical Hours.)

PRIMER. (Primarius, Lat. A book of primary or elementary instruction.) Dr. Burton, in his preface to King Henry VIII.’s Three Primers, shows that the word was in use at least as far back as 1527, when a Primer of the Salisbury use was printed: and that it was “applied to a first or elementary book, which was put into the hands of children. The term was, perhaps, sometimes applied to a mere spelling-book, or to any book which was used for teaching children to read; but it seems generally to have conveyed the notion of religious instruction. The lessons were taken from the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Ave Maria, or from some other common formulary, with short and easy explanations, for the use of young beginners, or for private devotion. In course of time, the word came to have a still more limited meaning, as applied to offices of religion, and was analogous to the modern term Prayer Book, with the exception that a Primer was not confined to any one definite set of prayers, but contained different selections, according to the choice of the compiler; though the Creed, Pater Noster, and Ave Maria, always held a prominent place in the Primer.”

The earliest Primer printed by Dr. Burton was in Henry VIII.’s reign, in 1535: “A goodly Primer in English.” This was an improved edition of a former one, and was one of the first overt advances towards reformation, though containing much Romish doctrine. It contains, among a great many other things, an exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the Creed, and the Offices for the Seven Hours, mainly taken from the old offices. In 1537 appeared the Institution of a Christian Man, a still further advance; published by authority of convocation. In 1539 appeared a Primer by Bp. Hilsey of Rochester, the subject, though not the form, being much the same as in the first-mentioned Primer. In 1545 King Henry VIII.’s Primer appeared. The services for the Hours in this, formed the basis for all future Primers, and were much the same as in Queen Elizabeth’s of 1559. In Edward VI.’s reign appeared, in 1547, a reprint of Henry VIII.’s Primer. In 1549, 1551, 1552, improved editions, with omissions of the superstitious invocations of the Virgin Mary. Queen Elizabeth’s first Primer, 1559, was a reprint of King Edward’s of 1551, or rather, 1552. The next, in 1566, was altered a good deal from the form. A second edition was published in 1575. All these had the services of the Hours, besides Litanies, and other prayers. Some the catechism, some the penitential psalms, &c. A Latin Form of Prayer, like the Primer, was published by authority in 1560, and Preces Privatæ, a distinct, though similar publication, in 1564. The last Primer which appeared (though not under that name) was Dr. (afterwards Bp.) Cosin’s “Collection of Private Devotions: in the practice of the ancient Church, called the Hours of Prayer; as they were after this manner published by authority of Queen Elizabeth, 1560, &c.” This was published in 1627, by command of King Charles I. See Mr. Clay’s valuable edition of “Private Prayer,” &c., during the reign of Elizabeth, edited for the Parker Society; and Dr. Burton’s Three Primers.

PRIMICERIUS, or Primmicerius, defined by Suicer as “qui in primâ cerâ hæres scriptus,” one who is designated as the principal heir. Hence it came to signify one who presided over any particular department; the chief notary, for instance, was called πριμμικήριος νοταρίων: and so the chief reader, the chief chanter, &c., in great churches. It is the title of a dignitary in several Italian cathedrals, and is supposed to answer to our chancellor; a name not used in Italy as that of a cathedral officer. The precentor of Aberdeen cathedral was anciently called Primicerius, as Kennedy states in his Annals of Aberdeen.

PRIMITIVE CHURCH. (See Tradition.) The Church as it existed in the ages immediately after its first establishment. From its near connexion with the apostles and other inspired men, the primitive Church enjoyed many advantages, of which, at later periods, it was deprived. To the earliest ages we naturally look for illustrations of obscurities in the New Testament, for evidence and testimony of matter of fact, for sound interpretations of doctrine, for proofs of the efficacy of the gospel, and for examples of undaunted Christian heroism. Hence the value we are accustomed to attach to the writings which have come down to us from the first three centuries after CHRIST; and this value is considerably enhanced by the fervour, the beauty, and the surpassing eloquence which adorned the Church in that early day, and in the ages following. These were familiarly known to the Reformers of the Church of England; and, having taken the primitive Church as their model, and as the best witness of Catholic principles and usages, they transfused its spirit, not only into the liturgy, but into the whole framework and superstructure of that venerable fabric they aimed to restore. How well they succeeded, is evidenced in that fearless appeal which Catholics ever make, first to the Apostolic Church, then to those who drew their principles from it along with their infant breath, and flourished and died in an age when inspiration itself was scarcely extinct. That Church has nothing to dread which can lay its standards on the altar of antiquity, and return them to her bosom, signed with the glorious testimony of a Polycarp, an Ignatius, a Clement, and a “noble army of martyrs;” nothing has she to dread but the possibility of declension, and unfaithfulness to her sacred trust.

PRIOR. (See Monk.) The head or superior of a convent of monks, or the second person after the abbot, corresponding nearly to the dean in churches of secular canons.

PRIORY. (See Monastery.) A house occupied by a society of monks or nuns, the chief of whom was termed a prior or prioress; and of these there were two sorts: first, where the prior was chosen by the convent, and governed as independently as any abbot in his abbey; such were the cathedral priors, and most of those of the Augustine order. Secondly, where the priory was a cell subordinate to some great abbey, and the prior was placed or displaced at the will of the abbot. But there was a considerable difference in the regulation of these cells; for some were altogether subject to their respective abbots, who sent what officers and monks they pleased, and took their revenues into the common stock of the abbeys; whilst others consisted of a stated number of monks, under a prior sent to them from the superior abbey, and those priories paid a pension yearly, as an acknowledgment of their subjection, but acted in other matters as independent bodies, and had the rest of the revenues for their own use. The priories or cells were always of the same order as the abbeys on which they depended, though sometimes their inmates were of a different sex; it being usual, after the Norman Conquest, for the great abbeys to build nunneries on some of their manors, which should be subject to their visitation.

Alien priories were cells or small religious houses in our country, dependent on large foreign monasteries. When manors or tithes were given to distant religious houses, the monks, either to increase the authority of their own order, or perhaps rather to have faithful stewards of their revenues, built convenient houses for the reception of small fraternities of their body, who were deputed to reside at and govern those cells.

PRISCILLIANISTS. Certain heretics whose founder was Priscillian, a Spaniard of noble extraction, very wealthy, and endued with much wit, learning, and eloquence. Mark, an Egyptian heretic, having sown the errors of Gnosticism in Gaul, went into Spain, where carnal pleasure, which was the principal article of his doctrine, procured him quickly a great many disciples, the chief whereof was Priscillian, who covered his vanity under the appearance of a profound humility. He taught, besides the abominations of the Gnostics, that the soul was of the same substance with GOD, and that, descending to the earth, through seven heavens, and certain other degrees of principality, it fell into the hands of the evil one, who put it into the body, which he made to consist of twelve parts, over each of which presided a celestial sign. He condemned the eating of the flesh of animals, and marriage as an unlawful copulation, and separated women from their husbands without their consent; and, according to his doctrine, man’s will was subject to the power of the stars. He confounded the holy persons in the TRINITY, like Sabellius, ordered his followers to fast on Sundays and Christmas day, because he believed CHRIST had not taken true flesh upon him. Lying, a most abominable vice, and so contrary to the GOD of truth, was a thing tolerated amongst his followers. There was a volume composed by them called Libra, because that in the twelve questions in it, as in twelve ounces, their whole doctrine was explained. Priscillian broached his heresy in the fourth century. He was put to death, with some of his followers, at Treves, in 385, by order of the usurper Maximus, contrary to the earnest instance of St. Martin, bishop of Tours. This was the first instance of the infliction of death for heresy, and at the time excited universal horror among Christians. St. Ambrose refused to communicate with the bishops who had taken part in it, and a synod at Turin excommunicated them.

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST. As the FATHER is eternal, without beginning, so is the SON without beginning, the only begotten GOD of GOD, Light of light, being very GOD of very GOD: in like manner the HOLY GHOST, without beginning, has proceeded from the FATHER and the SON. This is one of the mysteries which must be always incomprehensible, from our inability to comprehend an eternity a parte ante. In all discussions relating to these subjects, we may quote to the objector the wise words of Gregory Nazianzen: “Do you tell me how the FATHER is unbegotten, and I will then attempt to tell you how the SON is begotten and the SPIRIT proceeds.”

We will first give the doctrine as stated in the Articles and Creed, and then give from Dr. Hey the history of the controversy which has long subsisted between the Eastern and the Western Church.

Of the HOLY GHOST the fifth article says, “The HOLY GHOST, proceeding from the FATHER and the SON, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the FATHER and the SON, very and eternal GOD.”

The same doctrine is declared in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

In the Nicene Creed:

“I believe in the HOLY GHOST, who proceedeth from the FATHER and the SON.”

In the Athanasian Creed:

“The Holy Ghost is of the FATHER and of the SON, neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding.”

In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, various disputes took place with the followers of Macedonius with respect to the nature and procession of the HOLY GHOST. It may be particularly mentioned, with a view to what followed, that so soon as the years 430 and 431, in the Councils of Alexandria and Ephesus, it was declared that the HOLY GHOST proceedeth from the SON as well as from the FATHER. In order to terminate these disputes, the Church in general made a sort of settlement or determination what should be accounted Catholic doctrine; and, to avoid further adjustings of formularies, agreed that nothing should from that time be added to those then under consideration. It is probable that, at that time, the question whether the HOLY GHOST should be spoken of as proceeding from the FATHER and the SON, (Filioque is the famous word,) did not occur to men’s minds. Filioque was not in the creeds, though it was not new. The students in the Western Church seem ere long to have contracted an opinion, that it was proper for them to profess in a creed, that the HOLY GHOST proceedeth from the SON; they, therefore, inserted (or, one might say, restored) Filioque, meaning, probably, no harm; and then the Eastern Church thought as little of complaining as the Western of offending. Afterwards, however, contentions for worldly grandeur produced contentions about theological truth. Rome and Constantinople were rivals, not only for imperial but for spiritual pre-eminence. The patriarch of Constantinople styled himself Episcopus Œcumenicus. Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, was more lowly in the title he assumed; he was “servus servorum” scilicet Dei; but in his pretensions to authority he was equally ambitious. The patriarch was at the head of the Eastern Church, the pope of the Western. This rivalship made the Churches seek occasions for blaming each other, and thus the insertion of Filioque came to be complained of as a breach of faith. It was defended by the Western Church, because the word contained right doctrine: this was enough to make the Eastern Church dispute the doctrine: they did so, and the dispute still subsists, and still causes a separation between the Eastern and Western Churches. One pope (Leo III.) did once, for the sake of peace, order Filioque to be put out of the creed, at the same time ratifying the doctrine which it comprehends; but he could only prevail in those churches which were under his immediate sanction, and that only for a time. The obstinate resistance of the Greek or Eastern Church to the insertion of Filioque, is the more likely to be owing to some worldly consideration, as several of the Greek fathers have the doctrine in their works clearly expressed.—Hey. (See Holy Ghost.)

PROCESSION. The formal march of the clergy and the people putting up prayer.

The first processions mentioned in ecclesiastical history are those begun at Constantinople by St. Chrysostom. The Arians of that city being forced to hold their meetings without the town, went thither night and morning, singing anthems. Chrysostom, to prevent their perverting the Catholics, set up counter-processions, in which the clergy and people marched by night, singing prayers and hymns, and carrying crosses and flambeaux. From this period, the custom of processions was introduced among the Greeks, and afterwards among the Latins; but they have subsisted longer, and been more frequently used, in the Western than in the Eastern Church. The name of Procession was formerly sometimes used for the Litany. (See Litany, Rogation Days.)

PROCTOR. (Procurator, Lat.) Proctors are officers established to represent, in judgment, the parties who empower them (by warrant under their hands, called a proxy) to appear for them to explain their rights, to manage and instruct their cause, and to demand judgment.

The representatives of the clergy in convocation are also called proctors.

The same name is given to university officers, whose business is to guard the morals and preserve the quiet of the university at Oxford and Cambridge; to present candidates in arts and music for their degrees; and (formerly in a more special manner than at present) to superintend their public exercises. The latter is now the prominent practice of the proctors in the university of Dublin: the senior proctor presiding at the Masters’ exercises, the junior at the Bachelors’. They are two in number, and chosen annually by the several colleges in cycle.

Procurators were officers in some of the ancient universities of Europe, as in Paris; they were then four in number, elected annually, each by one of the four nations into which the students were divided: and the rector, the deans of divinity, law, medicine, and the four proctors, formed the standing council of the university: somewhat analogous to the caput at Cambridge. The deans were the proctors of their respective faculties. Anciently the university of Oxford was divided into two “nations,” as they might be called, each of which was represented by a proctor.

PROCURATION. A pecuniary sum or composition by an incumbent to an ordinary or other ecclesiastical judge, to commute for the provision, or entertainment, which he was formerly expected to provide for such ordinary at the time of visitation. (See Synodal.)

PROFESSOR. A public teacher in a university.

PROPHECY. (From προφητεία.) The prediction of future things. (See Scripture, Inspiration of, and Miracles.)

PROPHESYINGS. Religious exercises of the clergy in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, instituted for the purpose of promoting knowledge and piety. The ministers of a particular division at a set time met together in some church of a market or other large town, and there each in order explained, according to their abilities, some portion of Scripture allotted to them before. This done, a moderator made his observations on what had been said, and determined the true sense of the place, a certain space of time being fixed for despatching the whole. These exercises being however abused, by irregularity, disputations, and divisions, were restrained.—Canon 72.

PROPHET. One who foretells future events. We have in the Old Testament the writings of sixteen prophets; that is, of four greater prophets, and twelve lesser prophets. The four greater prophets are, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. The Jews do not place Daniel among the prophets, because (they say) he lived in the splendour of temporal dignities, and a kind of life different from other prophets. The twelve lesser prophets are, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

PROPITIATION. (See Covenant of Redemption, Sacrifice, Atonement, Satisfaction, Jesus.) Propitiation is originally a Latin word, and signifies the appeasing of the wrath of GOD, or doing something whereby he may be rendered propitious, kind, or merciful, to us, notwithstanding that we have provoked him to anger by any sin or offence committed against him. And the original word, ἱλασμὸς, is used by the Greeks exactly in the same sense, as might easily be shown. But that we may fully understand the true notion of the word, as it is here used, our best way will be to consider how it is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, made long before St. John’s time; for he, writing to those who were generally accustomed to the words and phrases in that translation, it cannot be supposed but he useth this, as well as other words, in the same sense as it is used there: for otherwise they would not so well have understood him. Now there we find that ἱλάσκεσθαι and ἐξιλάσασθαι all along answer to the ‏כפר‎, which signifies to appease, to pacify, to reconcile, a person offended, to atone or make him at one again with the offender. So both the Hebrew and the Greek words are used, where it is said, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise man will pacify it.” And also where Jacob, having sent a present before him to his brother Esau, that was offended with him, saith, “I will appease him with the present that goeth before me.” He calls his present ‏מנחה‎, a word commonly used for offerings to GOD. That was his propitiation, whereby his brother was reconciled to him. So were the sacrifices of the Levitical law: they were the Ιλασμοhὶ, the expiations, or propitiations, whereby GOD was atoned or appeased towards him which brought them; or, as it is there expressed, they were accepted for him, to make atonement for him. And when a man had thus brought his offering, and the priest had therewith made atonement for him, for the sin he had committed, then it was forgiven him, as we often read. In all which places, both the Hebrew and Greek words before mentioned are used; the first by Moses himself, the other by the Seventy which translated him. And therefore we cannot doubt but that the Greek word, coming from the same root, is here also used in the same sense for such a propitiation, or propitiatory sacrifice, whereby GOD is reconciled, or rendered propitious, to us, and our sins are forgiven us; GOD accepting, as it were, of that sacrifice, instead of the punishment which was due unto us for them.

The same appears also from several words derived from the same Hebrew root, as ‏כפר‎, which the Seventy sometimes translate λύτρα, or λύτρον, which signifies a ransom, a price paid for the redemption of man’s life, that was forfeited by any capital crime, something given in recompence and satisfaction for the crime whereby it was done away; sometimes ἄλλαγμα, commutation or propitiation, as the vulgar Latin renders it: sometimes περικάθαρμα, “piaculum,” or a sacrifice offered for the purging or expiating some heinous crime; or for the diverting some heavy judgment from one to another, as in Prov. xxi. 18, where the wise man saith, “The wicked shall be a ransom (as we translate it) for the righteous;” that is, as he himself elsewhere explains it, “The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead.” Sometimes they translate it Ἰξίλασμα, propitiation, expiation. And so the Jews anciently used this word in their common discourse; for when one of them would show the greatest love he could to another, he would say, ‏ כפרי הנני‎, “Behold, let me be his expiation;” that is, as one of their most learned writers interprets it, “Let his iniquities be upon me, that I may bear the punishments of them,” which will give us great light into the true notion of the word, as we shall see anon.

Another word from the same Hebrew root is ‏כפרים‎, which is commonly used likewise for a ransom, atonement, expiation, propitiation, or the like. As where we read of the ‏ כסף הכפרים‎, the atonement money, the Seventy render it τὸ ἀργύριον τῆς εἰσφορᾶς, the tribute money that every man was to give for the ransom of his life, when the people were numbered—the sin-offering of atonement, τῆς ἐξιλάσεως, of propitiation, as the Seventy translate it. The ram of the atonement, in the Greek, κριὸς τοῦ ἱλασμοὺ, the ram of propitiation. In all which places we see the word is used to denote something offered or laid down for the pardon of a man’s sins, and so for the redemption of his life that was forfeited by them. But that which is most observable in this case is, that the great day, when the two goats were chosen, the one for a sin-offering, with the blood whereof the high priest made atonement for the people in the most holy place; and the other for the scape-goat, upon the head whereof he confessed and laid the sins of the people, and then sent him away into the wilderness, never to be heard of more: this day, I say, is called ‏ יום הכפרים‎, the day of atonement, or, as the Seventy render it, ἡμέρα τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, and, which is the same, τοῦ ἐξιλασμοῦ, the day of propitiation. To which we might also add, that the lid or cover of the ark where the law lay, is called ‏כפרת‎, which the Seventy translate ἱλαστήριον, the propitiatory, we, the mercy-seat.

These things, I confess, may seem something too nice and critical, but I could not but take notice of them for the satisfaction of myself, and of all that understand the original languages, as being of great use to our finding out what the apostle here means by propitiation, according to the common notion of the word he useth in those days, and among those to whom he wrote; for hereby we may perceive, that, by the word propitiation here used, is meant such a sacrifice or offering made to GOD for the sins of men, which he is pleased to accept of as a sufficient atonement and satisfaction for the dishonour and injury that was done him by them, so as not to require the punishments which were due unto him for them, but to forgive them all, and to become again as kind and propitious to the persons that offended him as if he had never been offended by them. For he is now propitiated, he is pacified, and reconciled to them: he receives them into his love and favour again, and so into the same state they were in before he was displeased with them.—Beveridge.

PROPROCTORS. Two assistants of the proctors in the universities nominated by them.

PROSES. There are hymns in the Roman Church which are called Prosæ, Proses, a title given to composition in rhyme, in which the law of measure and quantity established by the ancient Greeks and Romans are neglected. These being sung after the Gradual or Tracts, were likewise called Sequentiæ. Of this kind is the beautiful Stabat Mater. (See Sequences.) The use of prosing began at the latter end of the ninth century.—See Burney’s History of Music. An uncharitable inference having been drawn from the epithet “beautiful” having been applied to the Stabat Mater, as if the idolatry of that composition, in spite of the contrary principles everywhere prevailing in this dictionary, had been approved, it is necessary to state that the epithet has reference only to the music.

PROTESTANT. The designation of Protestant is used in England as a general term to denote all who protest against Popery. Such, however, was neither the original acceptation of the word, nor is it the sense in which it is still applied on the Continent. It was originally given to those who protested against a certain decree issued by the emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529.—Mosheim.

On the Continent it is applied as a term to distinguish the Lutheran communions. The Lutherans are called Protestants: the Calvinists, the Reformed. The use of the word among ourselves in a sense different from that adopted by our neighbours abroad, has sometimes led to curious mistakes. The late Mr. Canning, for instance, in his zeal to support the Romanists, and not being sufficiently well instructed in the principles of the Church of England, assumed it as if it were an indisputable fact, that, being Protestants, we must hold the doctrine of consubstantiation. Having consulted, probably, some foreign history of Protestantism, he found that one of the tenets which distinguishes the “Protestant,” i. e. the Lutheran, from the “Reformed,” i. e. the Calvinist, is that the former maintains, the latter denies, the dogma of consubstantiation.

It is evident that in our application of the word it is a mere term of negation. If a man says that he is a Protestant, he only tells us that he is not a Romanist; at the same time he may be, what is worse, a Socinian, or even an infidel, for these are all united under the common principle of protesting against Popery. The appellation is not given to us, as far as the writer knows, in any of our formularies, and has chiefly been employed in political warfare as a watchword to rally in one band all who, whatever may be their religious differences, are prepared to act politically against the aggressions of the Romanists. In this respect it was particularly useful at the time of the Revolution; and as politics intrude themselves into all the considerations of an Englishman, either directly or indirectly, the term is endeared to a powerful and influential party in the state. But on the very ground that it thus keeps out of view distinguishing and vital principles, and unites in apparent agreement those who essentially differ, many of our divines object to the use of the word. They contend, with good reason, that it is quite absurd to speak of the Protestant religion, since a religion must of course be distinguished, not by what it renounces, but by what it professes: they apprehend that it has occasioned a kind of sceptical habit, of inquiring not how much we ought to believe, but how much we may refuse to believe; of looking at what is negative instead of what is positive in our religion; of fearing to inquire after the truth, lest it should lead to something which is held by the Papists in common with ourselves, and which, therefore, as some persons seem to argue, no sound Protestant can hold; forgetting that on this principle we ought to renounce the liturgy, the sacraments, the doctrine of the TRINITY, the Divinity and atonement of CHRIST,—nay, the very Bible itself. It is on these grounds that some writers have scrupled to use the word. But although it is certainly absurd to speak of the Protestant religion, i. e. a negative religion, yet there is no absurdity in speaking of the Church of England, or of the Church of America, as a Protestant Church; the word Church conveys a positive idea, and there can be no reason why we should not have also a negative appellation. If we admit that the Church of Rome is a true, though a corrupt Church, just as a felon is a man, though a bad man, it is well to have a term by which we may always declare that, while we hold in common with her all that she has which is catholic, scriptural, and pure, we protest for ever against her multiplied corruptions. Besides, the word, whether correctly or not, is in general use, and is in a certain sense applicable to the Church of England; it is surely, therefore, better to retain it, only with this understanding, that when we call ourselves Protestants, we mean no more to profess that we hold communion with all parties who are so styled, than the Church of England, when in her creeds and formularies she designates herself not as the Protestant, but as the Catholic Church of this country, intends to hold communion with those Catholic Churches abroad which have infused into their system the principles of the Council of Trent. Protestant is our negative, Catholic our definitive, name. We tell the Papist, that with respect to him we are Protestant; we tell the Protestant Dissenter, that with respect to him we are Catholic; and we may be called Protestant or Protesting Catholics, or, as some of our writers describe us, Anglo-Catholics.

PROTEVANGELION. The name of a book attributed to St. James the apostle, which treats of the birth of the blessed Virgin and of that of our SAVIOUR. It was brought first from the East by Postulus in Greek, who translated it into Latin, affirming that it is publicly read in the Eastern Church, and formerly believed to have been written by St. James, first bishop of Jerusalem; but the fables, of which it is full, disprove this.

PROTHESIS. The place in a church on which the elements in the eucharist are placed, previously to their being laid as an oblation on the altar. Called also credence. The word prothesis προθεσις is derived from the temple service, in which the placing of the shewbread was called ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων, and the bread itself, οἱ ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως, i. e. the loaves set in order before the LORD.

PROTHONOTARY. A word that has a different signification in the Greek Church from what it has in the Latin; for in the first it is the name of one of the great officers of the Church of Constantinople, who takes place next to the patriarch, and writes all despatches he sends to the Grand Seignor; besides which he is empowered to have an inspection over the professors of the law, into purchases, wills, and the liberty given to slaves: but in the Roman Church they were formerly called prothonotaries who had the charge of writing the acts of the martyrs, and the circumstances of their death; a title of honour whereunto is ascribed many privileges, as legitimatizing bastards, making apostolic notaries, doctors of divinity, of the canon and civil law; they are twelve in number.

PROTOPAPAS; i. e. archpriest: the head of a cathedral in the Eastern Church, answering to our dean.

PROVERBS, THE. A canonical book of the Old Testament, containing the Proverbs, or wise sayings, of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel.

This collection is but a part of the proverbs of that prince: for we are told that “he spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five.” His name is prefixed to the whole work. In the twenty-fifth chapter it is observed, that the following Proverbs belong to him, but that they were collected by persons appointed by Hezekiah for that purpose. The thirtieth chapter is entitled, “The words of Agur, the son of Jakeh.” The last chapter is inscribed, “The words of king Lemuel.” From these different titles it is concluded, that the first twenty-four chapters are the genuine work of Solomon; that the five next are a collection of several of his Proverbs, made by order of King Hezekiah; and that the two last chapters were added, and belong to different, though unknown, authors.

The Jews are of opinion, that Solomon wrote the Canticles in his youth, the Proverbs in his manhood, and the Ecclesiastes in the latter end of his life. The Hebrews called this book Mische, which signifies a proverb, or allegory; the Greeks style it Παραβολαὶ, and the Latins, Proverbia; which may properly be rendered sentences or maxims. They contain rules for the conduct of all conditions of life; for kings, courtiers, masters, servants, fathers, mothers, children, &c. The Greek version of this book is often very different from the Hebrew, and adds a great many verses, that are not found in the original. In the ancient Latin editions several verses are added, which have been left out since the time of St. Jerome.

This proverbial manner of speaking and writing was in great use and esteem among the Hebrews, and in all the countries of the East. Hence it was, that the queen of Sheba came to prove Solomon with hard questions, or parables. Hiram, king of Tyre, they say, held a correspondence by letters with Solomon, and proposed enigmatical questions to him, and answered those that were proposed to him by Solomon.

PROVIDENCE. The superintendence which God exercises over creation. In the very notion of a Creator this power is implied. The work of a creature may continue after its author’s death: because the work of a creature does not depend upon him who was the author of it, but upon some pre-existing things which were not created by him, but merely combined. While the pre-existing things remain in combination, the work lasts; but when the pre-existing thing or things are removed, the work perishes. A house survives the architect and builder, because the pre-existing things, the stones for instance, and the mortar, remain in combination. But the works of GOD are not combinations; they are creations; things formed out of nothing. The pre-existing Being on whom they depend is GOD, and GOD only. If GOD be removed from them they must perish. His presence is their support. But when GOD is present, he is present as an acting and intelligent being. Therefore we say, that what in his wisdom he created, that by his providence he sustains.

The general providence of GOD is seen in the laws of Nature. The universe may be compared to a great machine, the whole of which has been put into motion by the Creator, who watches over his works, and prevents disorder and confusion. According to these laws, the earth proceeds in its annual course, the moon observes its regular changes, the seasons come round at their stated periods, and the tides, in all their variety, keep their courses.

But although, to a certain extent, we perceive that there is such regularity in the order of events, that Nature may be said to be bound by laws; yet, as a matter of fact, we find that there is an occasional and not unfrequent interference with those laws. This fact is expressed in every language in which words occur equivalent to our expressions of luck, chance, good or ill fortune. According to the laws of Nature, the harvest follows the seed-time; but the husbandman is sometimes disappointed in his just hopes: the race is to the swift, and the battle to the strong, according to the laws of Nature; but accidents so frequently occur, that we find that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. These deviations from the laws of Nature, the Scriptures teach us to refer to an interference on the part of GOD, and this interference with the laws of Nature we regard as his particular providence.

Relying on his general providence, we labour and adopt the best means for the furtherance of our ends: we plant, we sow, we endeavour to be swift or strong. Believing in his particular providence, we pray. (See Prayer.)

PROVINCE. The limits of an archbishop’s jurisdiction, as the diocese is the limits of the jurisdiction of a bishop: and so provincial constitutions, provincial courts, provincial synods, provincial canons, are the canons, synods, courts, and constitutions, which have authority within the rule of a single archbishop.

PROVISIONS. An oppressive invention of the bishops of Rome, whereby the right of patronage of ecclesiastical benefices was arbitrarily suspended by the Pope, that he might present his own creatures, and make provision in the Church of England for foreign ecclesiastics. This usurpation of the pope occasioned much discontent in the Church of England; and at one time the evil had become so intolerable, that it occasioned frightful disturbances. The pope (Gregory IX.) had granted a provision on the patronage of one Sir Robert Thwinge, a Yorkshire knight, who resented it so highly as to associate with himself some eighty others, who had received the like treatment, by whom the persons of foreign ecclesiastics were seized, and even the pope’s envoys murdered. The king, Henry III., set himself to restore peace; and Thwinge, betaking himself to Rome, was reconciled to the pope, and recovered his right of patronage; and the pope conceded that there should be in future no provisions, except in benefices in the patronage of ecclesiastical persons or bodies. These he had usually found more defenceless, and therefore over them he still exercised his usurped authority.

PROVOST. The designation of heads of some colleges in our universities. It was also the title given to the heads of several collegiate churches in England, suppressed at the Reformation, and was their usual designation in Scotland, except in cathedrals. In some foreign cathedrals the head of the chapter is the provost, though there be a dean besides; and in others the dean is head, the provost subordinate. The latter was formerly the case in five out of the six of the cathedrals in the province of Tuam: the name is still retained in some; in others it has been exchanged for that of precentor. Archdeacon Cotton, in his Fasti Ecclesiæ Hiberniæ, (part ii. 114,) says that the title answered to that of chancellor. This observation seems strengthened by the fact, that the dignity of chancellor did not anciently exist in the province of Tuam. Maillane, in his Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, says that the provost had the care of the temporals, the dean of the spirituals; that deans were established to take care of the discipline of the church, and, in many chapters, became in the course of time the first in rank. In Holland and elsewhere, before the Reformation, the provost was sometimes a kind of archdeacon.

PSALMODY. The art or act of singing psalms. Psalmody was always esteemed a considerable part of devotion, and usually performed in the standing posture; and, as to the manner of pronunciation, the plain song was sometimes used, being a gentle inflection of the voice, not much different from reading, like the chant in cathedrals; at other times more artificial compositions were used, like our anthems.—Bingham. The word is now usually limited to the singing of the metrical psalms, but properly it includes chanting also.

PSALMS. The Book of Hymns. Our word Psalm is the translation of two very different Hebrew words. The first, Tehillem, properly means praises, and is the title of the book. The other, Mizmor, means in strictness, a poem. Psalm is derived from a Greek verb, ψάλλω, which means to play or sing to an instrument, being very appropriate to these sacred songs, which we know from Holy Scripture were sung to harps, and other musical instruments. The Book of Psalms is a collection of hymns or sacred songs in praise of GOD, and consists of poems of various kinds. They are the production of different persons, but are generally called “the Psalms of David,” because a great part of them was composed by him, and David himself is distinguished by the name of the Psalmist. We cannot now ascertain all the psalms written by David, but their number probably exceeds seventy; and much less are we able to discover with any certainty the authors of the other psalms, or the occasions upon which they were composed; a few of them were written after the return from the Babylonian captivity. And the ninetieth psalm, as its title in the original in our Bible translation shows, is attributed to Moses. There is no subject upon which learned men are so much at variance as the authorship of the Psalms, and the meaning of their titles. It is clear, however, that they may be divided into the following classes: Psalms of David; Psalms or Songs of the Sons of Korah; Psalms of Asaph; Songs of Degrees; and again into Penitential Psalms, Hallelujah Psalms, and Historical Psalms.

The whole collection of psalms, usually divided into five books, is eminently prophetical of the MESSIAH. The first book begins with the 1st and ends with the 41st psalm, and the Hebrew word LeDavid, (of or concerning David, or by David,) occurs before almost every psalm. The 2nd book begins with the 42nd psalm, the 3rd with the 73rd psalm, the 4th with the 90th psalm, and is continued to the 106th. The 5th and last book opens with the 107th. The seven penitential psalms are, 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143. These are appointed to be read in our Church on Ash-Wednesday. For many ages they had been used in the Western churches in token of special humiliation. (See Alphabetical or Acrostical Psalm, and Songs of Degrees; Korah, Psalms of; Asaph, Psalms of; and Hallelujah.)

PSALTER. The word Psalter is often used by ancient writers for the Book of Psalms, considered as a separate book of Holy Scripture. It afterwards assumed a more technical meaning, as the book in which the Psalms are arranged for the service of the Church. The Roman Psalter, for instance, does not follow the course of the Psalms as in Scripture; they are arranged for the different services, in the several accompaniments, as antiphons, &c. In our Psalter, the notice of the divisions for the days of the month, and the pointing in the middle of each verse, are a part of the Psalter, though not of the Psalms; and some part of the Psalms unfit for recitation are omitted, as the titles, the words Selah, Higgaion, &c., and the Hallelujahs with which many psalms begin or end, or both. The division of the Psalms into daily portions, as given in our Prayer Books, has been done with a view to convenience. Something like this has long prevailed in the Church, but without its regularity and system. Thus in Egypt, at first, in some places, they read 60 psalms; in others, 50; and afterwards they all agreed to recite 12 only. Columbanus, in his rule, appointed the number of psalms to vary according to the seasons of the year, and the length of the nights; so that sometimes 75 were sung. In the monasteries of Armenia they repeat 99 psalms to the present day. In the Greek Church, the Psalms are divided into cathismata, or portions, so that the whole book is read through in a fortnight. Previously to the reform of our offices, the English Church prescribed 12 psalms for the nocturn; but at that period the number was reduced on an average to three, by the division of the 119th, and by reckoning some other long psalms as each more than one. Under the present arrangement the Psalms are divided into 60 portions, two of which are appointed for each day of the month. Selections are also set forth by the American Church, which may be used instead of the regularly appointed portions.

The Psalms are pointed as they are to be said or sung in churches; by which is meant the colon in the middle of each verse, indicating the pause to be made, not only in the chant, but also in the recitation, as the words clearly imply; a direction commonly neglected by readers, to the great prejudice of distinct enunciation.

The custom of repeating the psalms alternately, or verse by verse, between the minister and the people, is probably designed to supply the place of the ancient antiphon, or the responsive chanting of the psalms by two distinct choirs. This latter practice is still retained in the cathedrals of England, and is more primitive than the alternate reading now prevailing in parish churches.

The Psalter, properly speaking, is a separate book from that of Common Prayer; though bound up in the same volume, and equally subscribed to by all the clergy. The title page of the Prayer Book announces the Book of Common Prayer, &c., &c., together with the Psalter, &c. The Prayer Book and the Psalter were not included in the title page till the last review. It is remarkable, that the same causes have had the same effects in influencing the translation of the Psalter both in the Latin and the English Church. In the former, the old Italian translation had become so familiar to the people that St. Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew was never adopted; but the old version, corrected considerably by St. Jerome, was used; a less correct edition by the Roman, and a more carefully worded one by the Gallican Church. The latter was in the course of time adopted by all the Churches in communion with Rome with a few exceptions. In like manner, the English Psalter does not follow the last translation, (which is in the authorized version of the Bible,) but that of Coverdale’s Bible, corrected, which had become familiar to the people from constant use.

PUBLIC WORSHIP. (See Formulary, Liturgy.) The 90th Canon ordains: “The churchwardens or questmen of every parish, and two or three more discreet persons to be chosen for sidesmen or assistants, shall diligently see that all the parishioners duly resort to their church upon all Sundays and holy-days, and there continue the whole time of Divine service; and all such as shall be found slack or negligent in resorting to the church, (having no great or urgent cause of absence,) they shall earnestly call upon them; and after due monition, (if they amend not,) they shall present them to the ordinary of the place.”

Article 20. “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies” that are not “contrary to GOD’S word.”

Article 34. “It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners; so that nothing be ordained against GOD’S word. Whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of GOD, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offends against the common order of the Church, and hurts the authority of the magistrate, and wounds the consciences of weak brethren. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish the ceremonies or rites of the Church, ordained only by man’s authority; so that all things be done to edifying.”

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

By Canon 80. “The churchwardens or questmen of every church and chapel shall, at the charge of the parish, provide the Book of Common Prayer, lately explained in some few points by his Majesty’s authority, according to the laws and his Highness’s prerogative in that behalf; and that with all convenient speed, but at the furthest within two months after the publishing of these our constitutions.”

Every dean, canon, and prebendary, of every cathedral or collegiate church, and all masters and other heads, fellows, chaplains, and tutors of or in any college, hall, house of learning, or hospital, and every public professor and reader in either of the universities, or in every college elsewhere, and every parson, vicar, curate, lecturer, and every other person in holy orders, and every schoolmaster keeping any public or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in any house or private family, as tutor or schoolmaster, who shall be incumbent, or have possession of any deanery, canonry, prebend, mastership, headship, fellowship, professor’s place, or reader’s place, parsonage, vicarage, or any other ecclesiastical dignity or promotion, or of any curate’s place, lecture, or school, or shall instruct or teach any youth, as tutor or schoolmaster, shall at or before his admission to be incumbent, or having possession aforesaid, subscribe the declaration following: I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established (13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4, s. 8; and 1 William, sess. 1, c. 8, s. 11). And no form or order of common prayers, administration of sacraments, rites, or ceremonies, shall be openly used in any church, chapel, or other place, other than that which is prescribed in the said books. (s. 17.)

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

By Canon 38. “If any minister, after he hath subscribed to the Book of Common Prayer, shall omit to use the form of prayer, or any of the orders or ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, let him be suspended; and if after a month he do not reform and submit himself, let him be excommunicated; and then if he shall not submit himself within the space of another month, let him be deposed from the ministry.”

And by Canon 98. “After any judge ecclesiastical hath pronounced judicially against contemners of ceremonies, for not observing the rites and orders of the Church of England, or for contempt of public prayer, no judge ad quem shall allow of his appeal, unless the party appellant do first personally promise and avow, that he will faithfully keep and observe all the rights and ceremonies of the Church of England, as also the prescript form of Common Prayer, and do likewise subscribe to the same.”

By the 13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4. “In all places where the proper incumbent of any parsonage, or vicarage, or benefice with cure, doth reside on his living, and keep a curate, the incumbent himself in person (not having some lawful impediment to be allowed by the ordinary of the place) shall once at the least in every month openly and publicly read the Common Prayer and service in and by the said book prescribed, and (if there be occasion) administer each of the sacraments and other rites of the Church, in the parish church or chapel belonging to the same, in such order, manner, and form as in and by the said book is appointed, on pain of £5 to the use of the poor of the parish for every offence, upon conviction by confession or oath of two witnesses, before two justices of the peace; and, in default of payment within ten days, to be levied by distress and sale by warrant of the said justices, by the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of the said parish.” (s. 7.)

By the 2 & 3 Edward VI. c. 1, and 1 Elizabeth, c. 2, it is enacted as follows: “If any parson, vicar, or other whatsoever minister, that ought or should sing or say Common Prayer mentioned in the same book, or minister the sacraments, refuse to use the said Common Prayers, or to minister the sacraments in such cathedral or parish church, or other places, as he should use to minister the same in such order and form as may be mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall, wilfully or obstinately standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating the LORD’S supper, openly or privily, or matins, even-song, administration of the sacraments, or other open prayer, than is mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall preach, declare, or speak anything in the derogation or depraving the said book, or anything therein contained, or of any part thereof; and shall be thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this realm, by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or by the notorious evidence of the fact, he shall forfeit to the king (if the prosecution is on the statute of the 2 & 3 Edward VI.) for his first offence, the profit of such one of his spiritual benefices or promotions as it shall please the king to appoint, coming or arising in one whole year after his conviction, and also be imprisoned for six months; and for his second offence be imprisoned for a year, and be deprived, ipso facto, of all his spiritual promotions, and the patron shall present to the same as if he were dead; and for the third offence shall be imprisoned during life.”

Canon 18. “No man shall cover his head in the church or chapel in the time of Divine service, except he have some infirmity; in which case let him wear a nightcap, or coif. All manner of persons then present shall reverently kneel upon their knees, when the general confession, Litany, or other prayers are read; and shall stand up at the saying of the Belief, according to the rules in that behalf prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. And likewise when in time of Divine service the LORD JESUS shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures their inward humility, Christian resolution, and due acknowledgment that the LORD JESUS CHRIST, the true eternal SON of GOD, is the only SAVIOUR of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of GOD to mankind, for this life and the life to come, are fully and wholly comprised. And none, either man, woman, or child, of what calling soever, shall be otherwise at such times busied in the church, than in quiet attendance to hear, mark, and understand that which is read, preached, or ministered; saying in their due places audibly with the minister the Confession, the LORD’S Prayer, and the Creed, and making such other answers to the public prayers as are appointed in the Book of Common Prayer: neither shall they disturb the service or sermon, by walking, or talking, or any other way; nor depart out of the church during the time of Divine service or sermon, without some urgent or reasonable cause.”

Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and reverently, upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book of Common Prayer, and their eves, and at convenient and usual times of those days, and in such places of every church as the bishop of the diocese or ecclesiastical ordinary of the place shall think meet for the largeness or straitness of the same, so as the people may be most edified. All ministers likewise shall observe the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, as well in reading the Holy Scriptures and saying of prayers, as in administration of the sacraments, without either diminishing in regard of preaching, or in any other respect, or adding anything in the matter or form thereof.”

And by the preface to the Book of Common Prayer: “All priests and deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness, or some other urgent cause. And the curate that ministereth in every parish church or chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the parish church or chapel where he ministereth; and shall cause a bell to be tolled thereunto, a convenient time before he begin, that the people may come to hear GOD’S word, and to pray with him.”

PULPIT. Sermons were originally delivered from the steps of the altar, which was sometimes called the Pulpitum, a term derived from the ancient theatres. The Ambones, or pulpits of the primitive Church, were used originally for reading the lessons only. In later times pulpits, or elevated desks, were erected sometimes in the choir, but generally in the nave, for the purpose of sermons. In our Church a raised desk, called a pulpit, is ordered in every church, from which the preacher addresses his flock. (See Canon 83.)

PURGATORY. A place in which souls are, by the Papists, supposed to be purged, whether by fire or otherwise, from carnal impurities, before they are received into heaven. The first authoritative decree concerning purgatory is to be found in the Council of Florence, (A. D. 1439,) in which council endeavours were made (and with momentary success) to persuade the representatives of the Greek Church to adopt the Roman innovations, and, amongst others, this of purgatory, which was so vague and undefined, that the former found it necessary to ask what it was that they meant by it. This inquiry produced the following synodical definition of it:

“Since you have demanded to have the faith of the Roman Church expressed concerning the truth of purgatory, we briefly reply in these writings, ‘that if any who truly repent depart from life before that by worthy fruits of repentance they have made satisfaction for their sins of commission and omission, their souls are purified after death, and to the relieving these pains, the suffrages of the faithful who are alive, to wit, the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other pious works, are profitable.’ ‘But whether purgatory is a fire, or a mist, or a whirlwind, or anything else, we do not dispute.’”

When first this error was broached by individuals it is not easy to determine; but in St. Augustine’s time, A. D. 398, it appears to have been new, as he speaks of it as a thing which “possibly may be found so, and possibly never;” and so our English Bede, “not altogether incredible.” Its novelty, as an article of faith, is well expressed by Fisher, bishop of Rochester: “For some time it was unknown; but lately known to the Catholic Church. Then it was believed by some persons, by little and little, partly from Scripture, and partly from revelations.” This is spoken of in our twenty-second Article as “a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded on no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of GOD.” What the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is, cannot be better explained than by the Romish doctors themselves, who tell us in the Council of Trent, “If any one say, that, after the grace of justification received, the fault is so pardoned to every penitent sinner, and the guilt of temporal punishment is so blotted out, that there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be done away in this world, or that which is to come in purgatory, before the passage can be opened into heaven, let him be accursed.” And elsewhere they say, “There is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the sacrifices of the acceptable altar.” So that, as Bellarmine saith, “Purgatory is a certain place, in which, as in a prison, the souls are purged after this life, which were not fully purged in this life, to wit, that so they may be able to enter into heaven, where no unclean thing enters in.” Thus we see, in a few words, what the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is.

Now that this doctrine is a “fond thing” is plain, in that, by the confession of some of their own writers, there is little or no footing for it in the Scriptures. Nay, if we examine it by Scripture light, we shall find it so far from being grounded upon the Scriptures, that it is directly contrary to them. For the Scriptures say, “The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love and their hatred and their envy are now perished; neither have they any more a portion, for ever, in anything that is done under the sun.” (Eccles. ix. 5, 6.) Whereas this doctrine saith quite contrary, that, when they are dead, they have a part or portion in the prayers of the faithful, and the sacrifices of the altar. Again; the Scripture makes mention but of a two-fold receptacle of souls after death, the one of happiness, the other of misery. (1 Sam. xxv. 29; Matt. vii. 13, 14; viii. 11; Luke xvi. 22, 23.) Whereas this doctrine brings in a third, called purgatory, betwixt heaven and hell, half happiness and half misery. Again; the Scripture saith, “The blood of JESUS CHRIST, his SON, cleanseth [or purgeth] us from all sin” (1 John i. 7); but this doctrine would persuade us, there are some sins which are to be purged away by the prayers and good works of others. To name no more, the Scripture saith, “He that believeth shall not come into condemnation, but pass from death to life” (John v. 24); and therefore St. Paul saith, “I am in a strait between two, having a desire to depart and to be with CHRIST.” (Phil. i. 23.) So that St. Paul reckoned verily upon it, that so soon as ever he was dead, he should be with CHRIST; no sooner “absent from the body” but “present with the LORD.” (2 Cor. v. 8.) Whereas this Romish doctrine about purgatory bids him not to be so hasty, for he might depart and yet not be with CHRIST neither; he might pass from death, and yet not to life; he might and must be absent from the body a good while before he be present with the LORD; he might go from earth, yet not to heaven, but to purgatory, a place St. Paul never dreamt of. So that this doctrine directly contradicts the Scripture. The Scriptures say, “We shall pass from death to life;” this doctrine saith, we shall not pass from death to life, but to purgatory: the Scriptures, that “when we are absent from the body we are present with the LORD;” but this doctrine, when we are absent from the body we are not present with the LORD: the Scriptures, that “when we depart we shall be with CHRIST;” this doctrine, that when we depart we must be in purgatory: the Scriptures, that “we must go directly from earth to heaven;” but this doctrine saith, that we must go about by purgatory, first going from life to death, then from death to purgatory, and from purgatory to heaven.

And as this doctrine herein contradicts the Scriptures, so does it contradict the Fathers too. For Origen saith, “We, after the labours and strivings of this present life, hope to be in the highest heavens,” not in purgatory. And so Chrysostom, “For those that truly follow virtue, after they are changed from this life, they be truly freed from their fightings, and loosed from their bonds. For death, to such as live honestly, is a change from worse things to better, from this transitory to an eternal and immortal life that hath no end.” And Macarius, speaking of the faithful, “When,” saith he, “they go out of their bodies, the choirs of angels receive their souls into their proper places, to the pure world, and so lead them to the LORD.” Whence Athanasius saith, “To the righteous it is not death, but only a change, for they are changed from this world to an eternal rest. And as a man comes out of prison, so do the saints go from this troublesome life to the good things prepared for them.” Certainly these Fathers were no purgatorians, who so unanimously affirmed the souls of the saints to go directly from earth to heaven, never touching upon purgatory.

To these we may add Gennadius, who assures us, that “after the ascension of the LORD to heaven, the souls of all the saints are with CHRIST, and going out of the body go to CHRIST, excepting the resurrection of their body.” And to name no more in so plain a case, Prosper also tells us, “According to the language of the Holy Scripture, the whole life of man upon earth is a temptation or trial. Then is the temptation to be avoided when the fight is ended; and then is the fight to be ended, when after this life secure victory succeeds the fight, that all the soldiers of CHRIST, who, being helped by GOD, have to the end of this present life unwearily resisted their enemies, their wearisome travel being ended, they may reign happily in their country.” So that they do not go from one fight here to another in purgatory, but immediately from the Church militant on earth to the Church triumphant in heaven. From hence we may well conclude, that “the Romish doctrine about purgatory is a fond thing repugnant to Scripture,” yea, and Fathers too.—Bp. Beveridge.

PURIFICATION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. This holy-day is kept in memory of the presentation of CHRIST in the temple, and is observed in the Church of England on the second of February. It was a precept of the Mosaic law, that every first-born son should be holy unto the LORD, to attend the service of the temple or tabernacle, or else to be redeemed with an offering of money, or sacrifice. The mother, also, was obliged to separate herself forty days from the congregation, after the birth of a male, and eighty after that of a female; and then was to present a lamb, if in good circumstances, or a couple of pigeons, if she was poor. All this was exactly performed after the birth of our SAVIOUR, who came to fulfil all righteousness; and was willing, in all particulars of his life, that a just obedience should be paid to the public ordinances of religion. The offering made in this case is an undesigned coincidence attesting the poverty of his parents. This feast is of considerable antiquity. St. Chrysostom mentions it as celebrated at his time in the Church. It is observed as one of the scarlet days in the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

PURITANS. A name assumed by the ultra-Protestants in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., who called themselves pure, though their doctrines were so impure as to lead them on to the murder of their archbishop and their king. A violent and popular outcry has often been raised against the Church, because, at the Restoration, those of the clergy who refused to conform were ejected from their benefices. But it will be well to see how the case really stands. Seven thousand English clergymen, having refused to take the covenant at the great Rebellion, were ejected from their livings, their places being supplied by dissenting teachers. This most honourable testimony to the clergy of the Church of England at that period ought never to be forgotten. At the Restoration it was required, that all those persons who had thus become possessed of the property of the English Church, should either conform to the regulations of the Church, or resign. Of all the Puritan clergy then in possession, only two thousand thought fit to resign rather than comply. And these two thousand were ejected from what? From their rights? No; but from their usurpations. Five thousand conformed, and still retained possession of the Church property, so that many of the previously ejected clergy of the Church of England who hoped, at the Restoration, to be restored to their own, were sorely disappointed and cruelly used. This treatment of the English clergy by the Puritans is worthy of notice, and is an instructive commentary on the spirituality of their pretensions, and the tenderness of their consciences.

“The taking of the covenant was now pressed close through all the parliament quarters, which brought a terrible persecution upon the loyal clergy. Those who refused to comply were turned out of their houses, and not suffered to compound either for personal or real estate. This rigour forced great numbers of the clergy to quit their benefices, and retire to places under the king’s protection. These vacancies were partly supplied by those Presbyterians who had formerly been lecturers or chaplains; partly by young unqualified students from the universities; to which we may add, some refugees from Scotland and New England, who came in for their share of preferment. And some of those Puritans, who had formerly declaimed so much against pluralities, were now reconciled to the holding two or three livings. As to the honest clergy, who refused to join the rebellion, or revolt from the Church, they were sequestered and imprisoned, and almost every way harassed and undone. From the year 1641 to six years forward, there were an hundred and fifteen clergymen turned out of their livings within the bills of mortality; most of these were plundered, and their wives and children turned out into the streets. By these barbarities in London, the reader may conjecture the greatness of the calamity in the rest of the kingdom. They had another way of reaching the orthodox clergy besides the covenant. Some of them were sequestered and ejected upon pretence of scandal and immorality. But, to show the iniquity of their proceeding upon this head, it may be observed, first, that some of the crimes charged upon them were capital; and, therefore, since the forfeiture of their lives was not taken, we may reasonably believe the proof was defective. Secondly, the depositions against them were seldom taken upon oath, but bare affirmation went for evidence. Thirdly, many of the complainants were apparently factious men, who had deserted the Church and professed an aversion to the hierarchy. Fourthly, many of these pretended criminals were ignorantly, if not maliciously, charged with delivering false doctrine: for instance, some were persecuted for preaching that baptism washed away original sin: and, lastly, many were ousted for malignancy; that is, for being true to their allegiance. In short, it is observed there were more turned out of their livings by the Presbyterians in three years, than were deprived by the Papists in Queen Mary’s reign; or had been silenced, suspended, or deprived by all the bishops from the first year of Queen Elizabeth to the time we are upon.”—Collier, ii. 828.

PYX. The box in which Romanists keep the Host.

QUADRAGESIMA. The Latin name for Lent. It was formerly given to the first Sunday in Lent, from the fact of its being forty days before Easter, in round numbers.

QUAKERS owe their origin to George Fox, in 1624. The following, according to Mr. Burder, are their principal articles of belief.

Every one who leads a moral life, and from the sincerity of his heart complies with the duties of natural religion, must be deemed an essentially good Christian. An historical faith and belief of some extraordinary facts, which the Christians own for truths, are the only real difference between a virtuous Pagan and a good Christian, and this faith is not necessary to salvation.

CHRIST is the true inward light, which enlightens all men. This is performed by an immediate inspiration, and not by the outward doctrine of the gospel, which CHRIST has preached to men as a rule of their belief and practice; which outward preaching of evangelical truths is not the usual and ordinary method used by GOD to enlighten mankind; but he sends to each person interior inspirations. This interior light is the true gospel; it is to be adored, as being CHRIST himself and GOD himself.

Scripture is not the true rule, the real guide of Christian faith and moral doctrine; this is a prerogative belonging only to the inward light, which each has within himself, or which breaks forth in the assemblies of the brethren or friends. The dead letter of the sacred writings is not of so great authority as the preaching of the authors of them: the particular books which make up the Scripture, were directed to private churches or persons, and we are not interested them.

The chief rule of our faith is the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST, who interiorly teaches us; and the Scripture is only a rule subordinate to that Spirit. An immediate inspiration is as necessary to us as to the apostles: it teaches us whatever is necessary to salvation. The promise which CHRIST made to his apostles, to teach them all truth by his Spirit, and that the HOLY GHOST should always remain with them, was not confined to the apostles only, it belongs to all the faithful; and it is said of them all, that the unction shall teach them all things.

All true ministers of CHRIST are as infallible in what they teach, as the prophets and apostles were; otherwise the Spirit of CHRIST would not be infallible. All those who are filled with the gifts of the SPIRIT are equally infallible, without which the infallibility of the HOLY GHOST must be divided; there is no exterior way of teaching, which may help one to judge of the truth of the doctrine which he preaches. The immediate inspiration is sufficient to enable a minister to preach without Scripture, or any other exterior helps. Without this particular inspiration all those who pretend to argue upon or explain the words of CHRIST, are false prophets and deceivers. The Church ought to have no other ministers, but those who are called by an immediate inspiration, which is best proved by interior miracles, of which the outward signs were only a representation or figure. The Quakers do not preach a new gospel, and therefore need not work miracles to prove their doctrine; a visible succession of ministers, ordained or otherwise established, is likewise of no use. Whoever is inwardly called to the ministerial functions, is sufficiently qualified for that post; inward sanctity is as essentially requisite in a true minister, as in a true member of the Church.

Women may preach with as much authority as men, and be ministers of the Church; for in CHRIST there is no distinction of male and female, and the prophet Joel has foretold that women should have the gift of prophecy as well as men.

The Scripture nowhere says, that the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST, are three persons; there are three several manifestations; but three persons would in reality be three Gods. The Scripture being silent as to the manner of the unity and of the distinction in the TRINITY, it is a great rashness in the Christian Churches to meddle with deciding such intricate points. The distinction of persons in the GODHEAD is a speculative subtlety, not calculated to mend our lives, and very prejudicial to Christian peace and charity. To draw up an exact profession of faith, it is necessary to adhere closely to the expressions used in Scripture.

The true CHRIST is he who existed before he was manifested in the flesh, and who has never been seen with the eyes of the flesh. JESUS CHRIST, as GOD, has a heavenly humanity, of which the earthly one is but the outward garment, the type or figure. JESUS CHRIST, the WORD and SON of GOD, did not personally unite himself to our human nature; he only took it as a suit of clothes, which he was to put on for a while. This human nature was inspired, as other men, but in a superior and more particular degree. CHRIST could not be united to a corrupt nature; his interior birth within men, is a greater mystery than his outward nativity. The faith in and the knowledge of CHRIST, according to the flesh, and of his mysteries, were but the first elements fit for the infancy of Christianity, which being over, those rudiments become useless: we now have learned to be in CHRIST, to become new creatures, to let old things pass away in order to make room for the new.

The expiation of our sins has not been merited by the outward spilling of CHRIST’S blood, which was not more precious than that of any other saint: neither has the Church been redeemed by it; but by an inward and spiritual blood, which purifies our hearts and consciences, of which the Scripture says, it was spilt for our justification; lastly, of which CHRIST himself says, that he who does not drink his blood shall not have life in him.

The Scripture does not say that CHRIST satisfied the justice of GOD for our sins. As GOD may without any injustice forgive our sins without such a satisfaction, it was not necessary, neither can it be reconciled with the gratuitous remission of our sins: and moreover, GOD’S punishing his own SON, who was innocent, is contrary to Divine justice.

CHRIST did not go up to heaven with the body which he had on earth, which is not now in heaven at the right hand of GOD. It is an erroneous opinion to think or believe that the body of CHRIST, which is in heaven, occupies and fills any particular limited place: the body of CHRIST is wherever his Spirit is; and it cannot save us, if distance of place separates it from us: whoever preaches a doctrine opposite to these propositions, is a false minister, and deceitful teacher: the same gift of discernment in the examination of spirits, which was bestowed on the apostles, remains still in the Church.

Our sins being once forgiven, it is wholly unnecessary to repent of them any further, or to go on in asking forgiveness for them. We cannot become GOD’S servants unless we be first purified.

Outward baptism is not an ordinance of CHRIST, or at least not to be observed as a perpetual law. Whoever pretends that CHRIST’S order is to be understood of water baptism adds to the text, which does not mention water. The baptism enjoined by CHRIST is a baptism of spirit, not of water. The water baptism was St. John’s, and has been abolished. St. Paul says he was not sent to baptize, but to preach. Water baptism was used by the apostles only as a toleration for the weakness of the Jews, but it can do no good to the soul. Baptism by inspersion is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. Water baptism, and the spiritual baptism, are two entirely different baptisms. The inward baptism alone is the true baptism of CHRIST.

Children ought not to be baptized, since they are not capable of taking any engagement upon themselves, or of making a profession of faith, or of answering to GOD according to the testimony of a good conscience.

Taking or receiving the eucharist is not a perpetual obligation; it was instituted heretofore only for those who were newly converted to the Christian religion, or for weak Christians in the beginning of their Christianity.

Amongst the Quakers the spirit is what they call free, and does not submit to synods, nor to worldly learning, wisdom, or customs: this is one of the chief and most essential articles of their religion. All the members of the Church may and ought to concur to the general good of the body; all may have the same helps from the HOLY GHOST, and feel the same impressions of his power; all are animated and fed, like our bodily members, by the same efficacy and in the same manner; all by consequence ought to give a helping hand to the edification of the mystical body, as natural members contribute to the welfare of human bodies. This they apply to the evangelical ministry: the SPIRIT, say the Quakers, notifies by its impulse what is wanting to the Church, and obliges those members, upon whom he makes that impulse, to give a speedy help to the mystical body. If it should happen that out of laziness, neglect, or distraction, the person so moved should not be sensible of the impulse, or not give a due attention to the defects of which the members of the mystical body are guilty, then they ought to rouse themselves with new fervour, and by a perfect recollection make a trial of the gifts and power of the Spirit of life. The call to pastoral functions essentially consists in this, it requires no pomp, no ceremony, no improvement of the mind, no preparation, no examination, nor any of the means used in other Christian societies, to provide churches with pastors and teachers. Yet if after this inward trial any one be moved and forcibly drawn by the SPIRIT to engage in the ministry, the ecclesiastical council must not omit the formality of examining whether the person so inspired be in reality fit for it, and ought to be admitted to that dignity; the importance of which, in regard to himself, and to the whole Church, is strongly represented to him, in a speech or exhortation made to that end. This ceremony is sometimes accompanied by the letters of other churches and societies of Quakers, recommending such or such to that office. When installed, they are maintained by voluntary contributions only, without any settlement, contract, or previous agreement. Each Quaker contributes freely, according to his power, and the minister is not to accept of their benevolence, further than is necessary for a sober and frugal maintenance; but if he be reduced to poverty for want of such contributions, it is lawful for him to leave the congregation which he served; he may even, according to their historian, shake the dust off his feet against that Church, as CHRIST ordered his apostles to do against those who would not receive them.

The Quakers apply equally to all governments, or pretended governments, and do not seem to make one title better than another; for, to use their own words, they do not dispute authority with any man, nor question forms of government, nor trouble their heads what becomes of the world. And, in consequence of this principle, they seem to make a kind of merit of their faithful obedience, under all the usurpations of the Rump Parliament, Cromwell, &c.

Robert Barclay, one of the most learned of their persuasion, in his second proposition affirms, that the light within, or the Divine inward revelation, is, like common principles, self-evident; and therefore it is not to be subjected either to the examination of the outward testimony of the Scriptures, or of the natural reason of man. In his third proposition he asserts, that the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth, nor the primary rule of faith and manners, they being only a secondary rule and subordinate to the SPIRIT; by the inward testimony of which SPIRIT, we do alone know them: so that, by this reasoning, the authority of the Scriptures must depend upon the inward testimony of the SPIRIT. He affirms further, that the depraved seed of original sin is not imputed to infants before actual transgression. (Prop. 4.) Those who have the gift of the light within, are sufficiently ordained to preach the gospel, though without any commission from churches, or any assistances from human learning; whereas those who want the authority of this Divine gift, how well qualified soever in other respects, are to be looked upon as deceivers, and not true ministers of the gospel. (Prop. 10.) All acceptable worship must be undertaken and performed by the immediate moving of the HOLY SPIRIT, which is neither limited to places, times, nor persons; and therefore all outward significations of Divine worship, unmoved by secret inspiration, which man sets about in his own will, and can both begin and end at his pleasure, all acts of worship thus mis-qualified, consisting either in prayers, praises, or preaching, prescribed, premeditated, or extempore, are no better than superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatry in the sight of GOD. (Prop. 11.) The dominion of conscience belongs only to GOD, therefore it is not lawful for civil magistrates to punish their subjects, either in fortune, liberty, or person, upon the score of difference in worship or opinions: provided always that no man, under pretence of conscience, does any injury to his neighbour, relating either to life or estate. The Quakers are charged with other errors of a very bad complexion, drawn especially from the writings of those who were first of their persuasion; but these tenets the modern Quakers seem to disown, and appear very willing to explain and reconcile their authors to a more orthodox meaning: the truth is, they now far differ from what they were originally, not only in principle, but even their external demureness and rigidity seem to be abated.

The following is taken from the Report published in 1854 by the Registrar-general.

“The whole community of Friends is modelled somewhat on the Presbyterian system. Three gradations of meetings or synods,—monthly, quarterly, and yearly, administer the affairs of the Society, including in their supervision matters both of spiritual discipline and secular polity. The MONTHLY MEETINGS, composed of all the congregations within a definite circuit, judge of the fitness of new candidates for membership, supply certificates to such as move to other districts, choose fit persons to be Elders to watch over the ministry, attempt the reformation or pronounce the expulsion of all such as walk disorderly, and generally seek to stimulate their members to religious duty. They also make provision for the poor of the society, (none of whom are, consequently, ever known to require parochial relief,) and secure the education of their children. Overseers also are appointed to assist in the promotion of these objects. At monthly meetings, also, marriages are sanctioned previous to their solemnization at a meeting for worship.—Several monthly meetings compose a QUARTERLY MEETING, to which they forward general reports of their condition, and at which appeals are heard from their decisions.—The YEARLY MEETING holds the same relative position to the quarterly meetings as the latter do to the monthly meetings, and has the general superintendence of the Society in a particular country: that held in London comprehends the quarterly meetings of Great Britain, by all of which representatives are appointed and reports addressed to the yearly meeting. Representatives also attend from a yearly meeting for Ireland held in Dublin. It likewise issues annual epistles of advice and caution, appoints committees, and acts as a court of ultimate appeal from quarterly and monthly meetings.

“A similar series of meetings, under regulations framed by the men’s yearly meeting, and contained in the Book of Discipline, is held by the female members, whose proceedings are, however, mainly limited to mutual edification.

“Connected with the yearly meeting is a MEETING FOR SUFFERINGS, composed of ministers, elders, and members chosen by the quarterly meetings. Its original object was to prevail upon the government to grant relief from the many injuries to which the early Friends were constantly exposed. It has gradually had the sphere of its operations extended, and is now a standing committee representing the yearly meeting during its recess, and attending generally to all such matters as affect the welfare of the body.

“There are also meetings of preachers and elders for the purpose of mutual consultation and advice, and the preservation of a pure and orthodox ministry.

“In case of disputes among Friends, they are not to appeal to the ordinary courts of law, but to submit the matter to the arbitration of two or more of their fellow-members. If either party refuses to obey the award, the Monthly Meeting to which he belongs may proceed to expel him from the Society.

“From the period of the Revolution of 1688 the Friends have received the benefits of the Toleration Act. By the statutes of 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 34, and 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 49, their solemn affirmations are accepted in lieu of oaths; and the abrogation of the Test Act renders them eligible for public offices.

“The first assemblies of the Friends for separate public worship were held in Leicestershire in 1644. In 1652 the Society had extended itself throughout most of the northern counties, and before the Restoration, meetings were established in nearly all the English and Welsh counties, as well as in Ireland, Scotland, the West Indies, and the British provinces of North America. The Society in the United Kingdom is not now increasing its numbers. The Friends themselves account for this, in part, by the constant emigration of members to America, where the body is much more numerous than in England. But they do not hesitate to admit that much is attributable to the feebler endeavours now than formerly to gain proselytes. Since 1800 their number, if computed by the number of their meeting-houses, has diminished. In 1800 they possessed 413 meeting-houses, while the number returned to the Census in 1851 was only 371. They say, however, that this does not inevitably indicate a smaller number of professors; since, of late, there has been a considerable tendency amongst them to migrate from the rural districts, and to settle in the larger towns. Small communities are to be found in parts of France, Germany, Norway, and Australia.”

Though dissenters are frequently chosen as churchwardens, it appears by a decision of Dr. Phillimore, (1 Curteis, 447,) that a Quaker cannot be compelled to serve the office.

QUARE IMPEDIT, is a writ which lies where one has an advowson, and the parson dies, and another presents a clerk, or disturbs the rightful patron in his right to present.

QUARE INCUMBRAVIT, is a writ which lies where two are in plea for the advowson of a church, and the bishop admits the clerk of one of them within the six months; then the other shall have this writ against the bishop.

QUARE NON ADMISIT, is a writ which lies where a man has recovered an advowson, and sends his clerk to the bishop to be admitted, and the bishop will not receive him.

QUATRODECIMANI, or PASCHITES. A name given, in the second century, to some of the Christians, who would celebrate the feast of Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, on what day of the week soever it happened.

QUEEN ANNE’S BOUNTY. (See Annates.)

QUERISTER, or QUIRISTER. The same as Chorister, which see.

QUIETISTS. A Christian sect, that took its origin in the seventeenth century from Michael Molinos, a Spanish priest, who endeavoured to establish new doctrines in Italy; the chief of which was, that men ought to annihilate themselves, in order to be united to GOD, and remain afterwards in quietness of mind, without being troubled for what should happen to the body; and therefore his followers took the name of Quietists, from the word quies, rest. By that principle he pretended that no real act was either meritorious or criminal, because the soul and its faculties, being annihilated, had no part therein; and so this doctrine led people to transgress all laws, sacred and civil. The doctrine of Molinos in 1687 was by the inquisitors and pope declared false and pernicious, and his book burnt. He himself was imprisoned after he had recanted, and died in 1692. It is supposed there long remained many of this sect. Their doctrine also crept over the Alps into France; the “Maxims of the Saints explained,” written by Fénelon, Archbishop of Cambray, having some tendency that way, and having been therefore condemned by the pope in 1699.

QUINQUAGESIMA. A Sunday so called, because it is the fiftieth day before Easter, reckoned in the whole numbers: SHROVE SUNDAY.

QUINQUARTICULAR CONTROVERSY. The controversy between the Arminians and the Calvinists on the Five Points. (See Five Points.)

QUIRE. (See Choir.)

QUOD PERMITTAT, is a writ granted to the successor of a parson, for the recovery of pasture, by the statute of the 13 Edward I. c. 24.

QUESTMEN. Persons appointed to help the churchwardens. In the ancient episcopal synods, the bishops were wont to summon divers men out of each parish to give information of the disorders of the clergy and people, and these in process of time became standing officers, called synod’s men, sidesmen, or questmen. The whole of the office of these persons seems by custom to have devolved on the churchwardens. (See Churchwardens.)

RANTERS. A denomination which arose in the year 1645. They set up the light of nature under the name of CHRIST in men. With regard to the Church, Scripture, ministry, &c., their sentiments were the same as the Seekers. The sect thus instituted is now extinct, and the name is given to the “Primitive Methodists,” as a branch of the Methodists are denominated.

RATE. (Church Rates.) The greater part of the property of this country has been bought and sold with an understanding that the church of the parish is to be kept and repaired by the owners of the property. Except for this liability, a larger sum would have been paid for the property. For those, therefore, who have thus profited by the existence of a church rate, to refuse that rate, and so appropriate to themselves what does not belong to them, is an act not only of profaneness but of dishonesty.

Rates for the repairs of the church are to be made by the churchwardens with the parishioners assembled, upon public notice given in the church.

The bishop cannot direct a commission to rate the parishioners, and appoint what each one shall pay: this must be done by the churchwardens and parishioners; and the spiritual court may inflict spiritual censures till they do. But if the rate be illegally imposed by such commission from the bishop, or otherwise, without the parishioners’ consent, yet if it be after assented to, and confirmed by the major part of the parishioners, that will make it good.

These levies are not chargeable upon the land, but upon the person in respect of the land, for the more equality and indifferency. And houses as well as lands are chargeable, and in some places houses only; as in cities and large towns, where there are only houses, and no lands to be charged.

A rate for the reparation of the fabric of the church is real, charging the land, and not the person: but a rate for ornaments is personal, upon the goods, and not upon the land.

And Sir Simon Degge saith thus: There hath been some question made, whether one that holds lands in one parish and resides in another, may be charged to the ornaments of the parish where he doth not reside; and some opinions have been, that foreigners were only chargeable to the shell of the church, but not to the bells, seats, or ornaments. But he says, he conceives the law to be clearly otherwise; and that the foreigner that holds lands in the parish, is as much obliged to pay towards the bells, seats, and ornaments, as to the repair of the church; otherwise there would be a great confusion in making several levies, the one for the repair of the church, the other for the ornaments, which he says he never observed to be practised within his knowledge. And it is possible that all, or the greatest part of the land in the parish, may be held by foreigners; and it were unreasonable in such case to lay the whole charge upon the inhabitants, which may be but a poor shepherd. The reason alleged against this charge upon the foreigners, is chiefly because the foreigner hath no benefit by the bells, seats, and ornaments; which receives an answer in Jeffrey’s case, (5 Co. 67,) for there it is resolved, that landholders that live in a foreign parish are in judgment of law inhabitants and parishioners, as well in the parish where they hold lands, as where they reside, and may come to the parish meetings, and have votes there as well as others. For authorities in the case, it is clear by the canon law, that all landholders, whether they live in the parish or out of it, are bound to contribute. And the practice, from its ease and convenience, seems now generally to go with this opinion.

Stratford. All persons, as well religious as others whatsoever, having possessions, farms, or rents, which are not of the glebe or endowment of the churches to be repaired, living within the parish or elsewhere, shall be bound to contribute with the rest of the parishioners of the aforesaid churches, as often as shall be needful, to all charges incumbent upon the parishioners concerning the church and the ornaments thereof, by law or custom, having respect unto the quantity of such possessions and rents. Whereupon, so often as shall be necessary, the ordinary shall compel them by ecclesiastical censures and other lawful means.

If a person inhabiteth in one parish, and hath land in another parish, which he occupieth himself there, he shall be charged for this land, for the reparation of the church of the parish in which the land lieth; because he may come there when he will, and he is to be charged in respect of the land. And such occupation of land maketh the person occupying a parishioner, and entitles him to come to the assemblies of the same parish, when they meet together for such purposes.

Where such lands are in farm, not the lessor, but the tenant, shall pay. For (as it was determined in Jeffrey’s case before cited) there is an inhabitant and parishioner who may be charged; and the receipt of the rent doth not make the lessor a parishioner.

It is said that the patron of a church, as in right of the founder, may prescribe, that, in respect of the foundation, he and his tenants have been freed from the charge of repairing the church.

The rectory, or vicarage, which is derived out of it, are not chargeable to the repair of the body of the church, steeple, public chapels, or ornaments; being at the whole charge of repairing the chancel.

But an impropriator of a rectory or parsonage, though bound to repair the chancel, is also bound to contribute to the reparations of the church, in case he hath lands in the parish which are not parcel of the rectory.

The inhabitants of a precinct where there is a chapel, though it is a parochial chapel, and though they do repair that chapel, are nevertheless of common right contributory to the repairs of the mother-church. If they have seats at the mother-church, to go thither when they please, or receive sacraments, or sacramentals, or marry, christen, or bury at it, there can be no pretence for a discharge. Nor can anything support that plea, but that they have time out of mind been discharged (which also is doubted whether it be of itself a full discharge); or that, in consideration thereof, they have paid so much to the repair of the church, or the wall of the churchyard, or the keeping of the bell, or the like compositions (which are clearly a discharge).

Every inhabitant, dwelling within the parish, is to be charged according to his ability, whether in land or living within the same parish, or for his goods there; that is to say, for the best of them, but not for both.

Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living within the said parish in his own occupation, is to be charged to the value of the same lands or living, or else to the value of the stock thereupon; that is, for the best, but not for both.

Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living within the parish, in the occupation of any farmer or farmers, is not to be charged; but the farmer or farmers thereof are to be charged; in particularity, every one according to the value of the land which he occupieth, or according to the stock thereupon; that is, for the best, but not for both.

Every inhabitant and farmer occupying arable land within the parish, and feeding his cattle out of the parish, is to be charged with the arable land within the parish, although his cattle be fed out of the parish.

Every farmer of any mill within the parish, is to be charged for that mill; and the owner thereof (if he be an inhabitant) is to be charged for his hability in the same parish, besides the mill.

Every owner of lands, tenements, copyholds, or other hereditaments, inhabiting within the parish, is to be taxed according to his wealth in regard of a parishioner, although he occupy none of them himself; and his farmer or farmers also are to be taxed for occupying only.

The assessors are not to tax themselves, but to leave the taxation of them to the residue of the parish.

The law as to the power of making and levying rates for church purposes cannot be said to be definitively settled at present, as there have been conflicting decisions, and some points of great importance are now sub judice, so far as regards the highest court of appeal in the kingdom. But at present the preponderance of authority is in favour of these two points: 1. That for the necessary repairs of the church the churchwardens may and ought to make and levy a rate, even though it be opposed by a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled. 2. That any expense connected with the celebration of service in the church, even to the salaries of pew openers and organist, may be levied by rate from the whole parish, if a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled have assented thereto.

RATIONALISM. To rationalize is to ask for reasons out of place; to ask improperly how we are to account for certain things, to be unwilling to believe them unless they can be accounted for, i. e. referred to something else as a cause, to some existing system as harmonizing with them, or taking them up into itself. Again; since whatever is assigned as the reason for the original fact canvassed, admits in turn of a like question being raised about itself, unless it be ascertainable by the senses, and be the subject of personal experience, Rationalism is bound properly to pursue onward its course of investigation on this principle, and not to stop, till it can directly or ultimately refer to self as a witness, whatever is offered to its acceptance. Thus it is characterized by two peculiarities; its love of systematizing, and its basing its system upon personal experience, on the evidence of sense. In both it stands opposed to what is commonly understood by the word faith, or belief in testimony; for which it deliberately substitutes system (or, what is popularly called reason) and sight. Rationalism is concerned with Anthropology, Faith with Theology.

READER. The office of reader is one of the five inferior orders in the Romish Church.

And in the Church of England, in churches or chapels where there is only a very small endowment, and no clergyman will take upon him the charge or cure thereof, it has been usual to admit readers, to the end that Divine service in such places might not altogether be neglected.

It is said, that readers were first appointed in the Church about the third century. In the Greek Church they were said to have been ordained by the imposition of hands: but whether this was the practice of all the Greek Churches has been much questioned. In the Latin Church it was certainly otherwise. The Council of Carthage speaks of no other ceremony, but the bishop’s putting the Bible into his hands in the presence of the people, with these words, “Take this book and be thou a reader of the word of GOD, which office if thou shalt faithfully and profitably perform, thou shalt have part with those that minister in the word of GOD.” And, in Cyprian’s time, they seem not to have had so much as this ceremony of delivering the Bible to them, but were made readers by the bishop’s commission and deputation only to such a station in the Church.—Bingham.

Upon the Reformation here, they were required to subscribe to the following injunctions:—“Imprimis,—I shall not preach or interpret, but only read that which is appointed by public authority:—I shall not minister the sacraments or other public rites of the Church, but bury the dead, and purify women after their child-birth:—I shall keep the register book according to the injunctions:—I shall use sobriety in apparel, and especially in the church at common prayer:—I shall move men to quiet and concord, and not give them cause of offence:—I shall bring in to my ordinary, testimony of my behaviour, from the honest of the parish where I dwell, within one half year next following:—I shall give place upon convenient warning so thought by the ordinary, if any learned minister shall be placed there at the suit of the patron of the parish:—I shall claim no more of the fruits sequestered of such cure where I shall serve, but as it shall be thought meet to the wisdom of the ordinary:—I shall daily at the least read one chapter of the Old Testament, and one other of the New, with good advisement, to the increase of my knowledge:—I shall not appoint in my room, by reason of my absence or sickness, any other man; but shall leave it to the suit of the parish to the ordinary, for assigning some other able man:—I shall not read but in poorer parishes destitute of incumbents, except in the time of sickness, or for other good considerations to be allowed by the ordinary:—I shall not openly intermeddle with any artificer’s occupations, as covetously to seek a gain thereby, having in ecclesiastical living the sum of twenty nobles or above by the year.”

This was resolved to be put to all readers and deacons by the respective bishops, and is signed by both the archbishops, together with the bishops of London, Winchester, Ely, Sarum, Carlisle, Chester, Exeter, Bath and Wells, and Gloucester.—Strype’s Annals.

By the foundation of divers hospitals, there are to be readers of prayers there, who are usually licensed by the bishop.

READING DESK. (See Pew.) The reading desk, or reading pew, appears to have been frequently erected at the same time as the pulpit, which was ordered by the canons of 1603 to be placed in every church not already provided with one. The reading desk is only once recognised in our Prayer Book, and that in the rubric prefixed to the Commination, and is there called a reading pew; and it is remarkable that the term was first introduced there at the last revision of the Prayer Book, in 1661: it is not found in any edition printed before that time. Bishop Sparrow tells us, that, previously to the time of Cromwell, the reading pew had one desk for the Bible, looking towards the people to the body of the Church; another for the Prayer Book, looking towards the east, or upper end of the chancel. And very reasonable was this usage: for, when the people were spoken to, it was fit to look towards them, but when GOD was spoken to, it was fit to turn from the people. And besides, if there be any part of the world more honourable in the esteem of men than another, it is fit to look that way when we pray to GOD in public, that the turning of our bodies to a more honourable place may mind us of the great honour and majesty of the person we speak to. And this reason St. Augustine gives of the Church’s ancient custom of turning to the east in their public prayers, because the east is the most honourable part of the world, being the region of light, whence the glorious sun arises.

READING IN. The ceremony of reading in, which is required of every incumbent on entering upon his cure, is best described in the memorandum to be signed by the churchwardens, or other inhabitants of the parish, of its having been performed. It is as follows:—

“Memorandum, that on Sunday, the —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD ——, the Reverend A. B., clerk, rector, or vicar of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, did read in his church of —— aforesaid, the articles of religion, commonly called the Thirty-nine Articles, agreed upon in convocation, in the year of our LORD 1562, and did declare his unfeigned assent and consent thereto; also, that he did publicly and openly, on the day and year aforesaid, in the time of Divine service, read a declaration in the following words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, as it is now by law established,’ together with a certificate under the hand of the Right Reverend ——, by Divine permission Lord Bishop of ——, of his having made and subscribed the same before him; and also that the said A. B. did read, in his parish church aforesaid, publicly and solemnly, the Morning and Evening Prayer according to the form prescribed in and by the book, intituled ‘The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;’ and that immediately after reading the Evening Service, the said A. B. did, openly and publicly, before the congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned assent and consent to all things therein contained and prescribed, in these words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book, intituled the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.’ And these things we promise to testify upon our corporal oaths, if at any time we should be duly called upon so to do. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, the day and year first above written.”

REAL PRESENCE. (See Transubstantiation, Communion, Lord’s Supper, Eucharist.) The Homily on the Sacrament expressly asserts, “Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the supper of the LORD there is no vain ceremony or bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent: but the communion of the body and blood of our LORD in a marvellous incorporation, which, by the operation of the HOLY GHOST, is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful.” In the order for the Administration of the LORD’S SUPPER, the elements are repeatedly designated as the body and blood of CHRIST, and after the reception of them we give thanks that GOD “doth vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body of [His] SON, our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.” In the exhortation of the same office, mention is made of “the holy communion of the body and blood of CHRIST.” “We spiritually eat the flesh of CHRIST, and drink his blood.”—Ibid. “Grant us, therefore, gracious LORD, so to eat the flesh of thy dear SON JESUS CHRIST, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,” &c.—Prayer before Consecration. “Grant that we, receiving these thy creatures, of bread and wine, &c. ... may be partakers of his most precious body and blood.”—Consecration. The catechism, in agreement with this, defines the inward part of this sacrament to be “the body and blood of CHRIST, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the LORD’S supper.” The 28th Article asserts, with reference to the holy communion, that “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of CHRIST, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of CHRIST.”

So speaks the Church of England, which expressly rejects the Romish figment of transubstantiation. Therefore, the Church of England distinguishes between the real presence, which she so strongly asserts, and the Romish error which has led to Romish heresy.

Bishop Ridley, our great reformer, who died because he would not accept the fable of transubstantiation, said, addressing his judge, “My lord, you know that where any equivocation, which is a word having two significations, is, except distinction be given, no direct answer can be made; for it is one of Aristotle’s fallacies, containing two questions under one, the which cannot be satisfied with one answer. For both you and I agree herein, that the sacrament is the very true and natural body and blood of CHRIST, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into heaven, and which sitteth at the right hand of GOD the FATHER, which shall come from thence to judge both the quick and the dead, only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being; we confess all one thing to be in the sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. I, being fully by GOD’S word thereto persuaded, confess CHRIST’S natural body to be in the sacrament, indeed by spirit and grace, because whosoever receiveth worthily that bread and wine, receiveth effectually CHRIST’S body and drinketh his blood; that is, he is made effectually partaker of his passion; and you make a grosser kind of being, enclosing a natural, a lively, a moving body, under the shape or form of bread and wine. Now this difference considered, to the question I answer: that in the sacrament of the altar is the natural body and blood of CHRIST vere et realiter, indeed and in reality, if you take those terms, indeed and really, for spiritually by grace and efficacy; for so every worthy receiver receiveth the very true body of CHRIST: but if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you include a lively and a moveable body under the forms of bread and wine, then, in that sense, is not CHRIST’S body in the sacrament, really and indeed.”—Wordsworth’s Biography, iii. 237. The difference is strongly pointed out by Gloucester Ridley. “With reference to Bishop Ridley’s opinions, he and those associated with him denied the presence of CHRIST’S body in the natural substance of his human and assumpt nature, but grant the presence of the same by grace; that is, they affirmed and said, that the substance of the natural body and blood of CHRIST is only remaining in heaven, and so shall be until the latter day, when he shall come again to judge the quick and the dead; but by grace the same body is present here with us, as we say of the sun, which in substance never removeth his place out of the heavens, is yet present here by his beams, light, and natural influence, when it shineth upon earth. For all grant that St. Paul’s words require, that the bread which we break should be the communion of the body of CHRIST, and that the cup of blessing should be the communion of the blood of CHRIST.”—Ridley.

That which is given by the priest in this sacrament is, as to its substance, bread and wine; as to its sacramental nature and signification, it is the figure or representation of CHRIST’S body and blood, which was broken and shed for us. The very body and blood of CHRIST, as yet, it is not; but, being with faith and piety received by the communicant, it becomes to him, by the blessing of GOD and the grace of the HOLY SPIRIT, the very body and blood of CHRIST; as it entitles him to a part in the sacrifice of his death, and to the benefits thereby procured to all his faithful and obedient servants.—Abp. Wake.

These words (viz. “the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received”) are intended to show, that our Church as truly believes the strongest assertions of Scripture concerning this sacrament, as the Church of Rome doth, only takes more care to understand them in the right meaning: which is, that though, in one sense, all communicants equally partake of what CHRIST calls his body and blood, that is, the outward signs of them, yet in a much more important sense, “the faithful” only, the pious and virtuous receiver, eats his flesh and drinks his blood, shares in the life and strength derived to men from his incarnation and death, and, through faith in him, becomes, by a vital union, one with him; “a member,” as St. Paul expresses it, “of his flesh and of his bones” (Eph. v. 30); certainly not in a literal sense, which yet the Romanists might as well assert, as that we eat his flesh in a literal sense, but in a figurative and spiritual one. In appearance, the sacrament of CHRIST’S death is given to all alike; but “verily and indeed,” in its beneficial effects, to none besides the faithful. Even to the unworthy communicant he is present, as he is wherever we meet together in his name; but in a better and most gracious sense to the worthy soul, becoming, by the inward virtue of his Spirit, its food and sustenance.

This real presence of CHRIST in the sacrament, his Church hath always believed. But the monstrous notion of his bodily presence was started 700 years after his death; and arose chiefly from the indiscretion of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who instead of explaining judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language, heightened them, and went beyond them, till both it and they had their meaning mistaken most astonishingly. And when once an opinion had taken root, that seemed to exalt the holy sacrament so much, it easily grew and spread; and the more for its wonderful absurdity in those ignorant and superstitious ages: till at length, 500 years ago, and 1200 years after our SAVIOUR’S birth, it was established for a gospel-truth, by the pretended authority of the Romish Church; and even this had been tolerable in comparison, if they had not added idolatrous practice to erroneous belief, worshipping, on their knees, a bit of bread for the SON of GOD. Nor are they content to do this themselves, but, with most unchristian cruelty, curse and murder those who refuse it.

It is true we also kneel at the sacrament as they do, but for a very different purpose; not to acknowledge “any corporal presence of CHRIST’S natural flesh and blood,” as our Church, to prevent all possibility of misconstruction, expressly declares, adding, that “his body is in heaven, and not here,” but to worship him who is everywhere present, the invisible GOD. And this posture of kneeling we by no means look upon as in itself necessary, but as a very becoming appointment, and very fit to accompany the prayers and praises which we offer up at the instant of receiving; and to express that inward spirit of piety and humility, on which our partaking worthily of this ordinance, and receiving benefit from it, depend.—Abp. Secker.

At the end of the whole office (of the Communion) is added a protestation concerning the gesture of kneeling at the sacrament of the LORD’S supper, and explaining the Church’s notion of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the same. This was first added in the Second Book of King Edward, in order to disclaim any adoration to be intended by that ceremony, either unto the sacramental bread or wine then bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being, of Christ’s natural flesh and blood. But upon Queen Elizabeth’s accession this was laid aside. It appears no more in any of our Common Prayers till the last review: at which time it was again added, with some little amendment of the expressions and transposal of the sentences; but exactly the same throughout as to the sense; excepting that the words real and essential presence were thought proper to be changed for corporal presence. For a real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, is what our Church frequently asserts in this very office of Communion, in her Articles, in her Homilies, and in her catechism [as quoted above]. This is the doctrine of our Church in relation to the real presence in the sacrament, entirely different from the doctrine of transubstantiation, which she here, as well as elsewhere, disclaims: a doctrine which requires so many ridiculous absurdities and notorious contradictions to support it, that it is needless to offer any confutation of it, in a Church, which allows her members the use of their senses, reason, Scripture, and antiquity.—Wheatly.

REALISTS. The Realists, who followed the doctrine of Aristotle with respect to universal ideas, were so called in opposition to the Nominalists, (see Nominalists,) who embraced the hypothesis of Zeno and the Stoics upon that perplexed and intricate subject. Aristotle held, against Plato, that, previous to, and independent of, matter, there were no universal ideas or essences; and that the ideas, or exemplars, which the latter supposed to have existed in the Divine mind, and to have been the models of all created things, had been eternally impressed upon matter, and were coeval with, and inherent in, their objects. Zeno and his followers, departing both from the Platonic and Aristotelian systems, maintained that these pretended universals had neither form nor essence, and were no more than mere terms and nominal representations of their particular objects. The doctrine of Aristotle prevailed until the eleventh century, when Roscelinus embraced the Stoical system, and founded the sect of the Nominalists, whose sentiments were propagated with great success by the famous Abelard. These two sects differed considerably among themselves, and explained, or rather obscured, their respective tenets in a variety of ways.

RECANTATION. (See Abjuration.)

RECTOR. (See Vicar.) A term applied to several persons whose offices are very different, as, 1. The rector of a parish is a clergyman who has the charge and care of a parish, and possesses all the tithes, &c. 2. The same name is also given to the head in some of our colleges, and also to the head-master of large schools. 3. Rector is also used in several convents for the superior officer who governs the house. The Jesuits gave this name to the superiors of such of their houses as were either seminaries or colleges.

RECUSANT. A Recusant, in general, signifies any person, whether Papist or other, who refuseth to go to church and to worship GOD after the manner of the Church of England: a Popish Recusant is a Papist who so refuseth; and a Popish Recusant convict is a Papist legally convicted of such offence.

REDEEMER, THE. Our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.” (Job xix. 25.) “The Redeemer shall come to Sion.” (Isa. lix. 20.) “CHRIST hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” (Gal. iii. 13.) “Redeemed with the precious blood of CHRIST.” (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) “Having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Heb. ix. 12. See also Job xxxiii. 23, 24; Matt. xxvi. 28; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; Rev. v. 9.)

REDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death, by the obedience and sacrifice of CHRIST, who on this account is called the “REDEEMER.” (Isaiah lix. 20; Job xix. 25.)—(See Covenant of Redemption.)

REFORMATION. The rescue of our Church from the usurped dominion of the pope, and its restoration from the corruptions of Popery to a nearer approach to primitive purity, which took place in the 16th century, is called the Reformation. (See Church of England, and Lutheranism.) The same term is applied to the contemporaneous Protestant movement on the Continent, and in Scotland.

As regards the separation of the Church of England from the corrupt Church of Rome, it began in the reign of King Henry VIII., and was fully established in that of Queen Elizabeth.

King Henry VIII. was at first a great stickler for the see of Rome. No one discovered more zeal for it than he did in the beginning of his reign. He even wrote a book against Luther, entitled, “Of the Seven Sacraments;” and this gained him the new title of “Defender of the Faith,” which Pope Leo X. bestowed upon him by a bull, and which his successors have preserved ever since their separation from the Church of Rome. But this zeal for the see of Rome was greatly cooled, when that court refused to grant him the satisfaction he expected with regard to his intended divorce from Queen Catherine. This seems to have been Henry’s first motive of separation from that Church.

Cranmer, whom the king had raised to the see of Canterbury, in compliance with Henry’s desire, dissolved his marriage by a sentence pronounced May 23, 1533, without waiting for the sentence of the court of Rome. This step made way for another. For the parliament passed a bill, that for the future no person should appeal to the court of Rome, in any case whatever; but that they should all be judged within the realm by the prelates: that neither first-fruits, annates, or St. Peter’s pence should any more be paid; nor palls, or bulls for bishoprics, be any longer fetched from Rome: and that whoever infringed this statute should be severely punished.

Clement VII., at that time pope, threatened Henry with excommunication, in case he refused to acknowledge his fault, by restoring things to their former state, and taking back his queen. However Francis I., king of France, interposed, and, in the interview which he had with the pope at Marseilles, he prevailed with him to suspend the excommunication, till such time as he had employed his endeavours to make Henry return to the obedience of the holy see. To this purpose he sent John du Bellay, bishop of Paris, to King Henry, who gave him some hopes of his submission, provided the pope would delay the excommunication. Clement, though he could not refuse so just a request, yet limited the delay to so short a time, that, before Henry could come to any determinate resolution, the time was lapsed, and, no news coming from England, excommunication was pronounced at Rome, and set up in all the usual places.

The effects of this excommunication were very fatal to the see of Rome. The pope, who began to repent of his over-hasty proceedings, found it impossible to appease King Henry. For that monarch now threw off all restraint, and openly separated from the see of Rome. The parliament declared him supreme head of the Church of England, and granted him the annates and first-fruits, the tenths of the revenues of all benefices, and the power of nominating to all bishoprics. The parliament also passed another act, to deprive all persons charged with treason of the privilege of sanctuary. And thus ended the pope’s power in England, A. D. 1534.

The king met with little or no opposition, in the prosecution of his designs, from the laity, who had the utmost aversion and contempt for the clergy, and were extremely scandalized at the vicious and debauched lives of the monks. But these latter preached with great vehemence against these innovations, and the priests prevailed with the peasants in the North of England to rise. However the mutineers accepted of a general pardon, laid down their arms, and took them up again; but being defeated, and most of their leaders executed, they were obliged to submit. John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, who had been the king’s tutor, and the learned Sir Thomas More, lord chancellor, for refusing to acknowledge the king’s supremacy, were beheaded.

As to King Henry himself, though he abrogated the authority of the see of Rome in England, yet he constantly adhered to the doctrines and principles of that Church, and even caused some Protestants to be burned.

The ruin of the papal authority brought on a reformation in the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Church of England. All the monasteries were dissolved, and the monks set adrift. The Bible was printed in English, and set up by public authority in all the churches; and the ceremonies of the Church were greatly altered. But King Henry, dying in 1547, left the Reformation imperfect, and as it were in its infancy.

In the succeeding reign, Seymour, duke of Somerset, regent and protector during the minority of Edward VI., greatly forwarded the Reformation, in which the parliament supported him with all their power. For he abolished private masses, restored the cup to the laity, took away the images out of the churches, and caused the Book of Common Prayer to be revised and corrected. In this reign the Reformation was solemnly confirmed by the legislature, and had the sanction of an act of both houses of parliament. So many alterations occasioned great disorders in the kingdom. The common people having now not so easy an opportunity of getting a livelihood, because of the great number of monks, who being driven out of the suppressed monasteries were obliged to work; this fomented the discontent, insomuch that several counties of England took up arms. But the rebels, after having been defeated in several engagements, accepted of the general pardon that was offered them.

The Reformation met with a great interruption during the reign of Queen Mary, who, being a bigoted Roman Catholic, began her reign with setting at liberty the Papists, restoring the Popish prelates to their sees, and allowing a general liberty of conscience till the sitting of the parliament, in which an act was passed, prohibiting the exercise of any other religion but the Roman Catholic. Having strengthened herself by a marriage with Philip II., king of Spain, she called a new parliament, in which Philip and herself presided. Cardinal Pole made a fine speech in it; after which, both houses suppressed the reformed religion, and restored the Church to the same state it was in before the divorce of King Henry VIII. At the same time the above-mentioned cardinal reconciled the nation to the Church of Rome, after having absolved it from all ecclesiastical censures. Great numbers, however, still adhered to the profession of the reformed religion; whom Queen Mary punished with great severity, and burnt some hundreds of them, among whom were Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, and four other bishops.

The death of Queen Mary made way for the accession of Queen Elizabeth, and, during her reign, the reformation of the Church in these kingdoms was established.

REFUGE. (See Sanctuary.)

REFUGE, CITIES OF. In the Levitical law six cities were appointed by the command of God as cities of refuge for those who might by accident, and without malice, unhappily slay another. There they were to dwell till the death of the high priest; and if caught before they came thither, or afterwards away from the city, they might be slain by the avenger of blood. (Exod. xx. 13; Numb. xxxv. 11, &c.)

REGALE, in the French ecclesiastical law, is a right which the king had of enjoying the revenues of vacant bishoprics, till such time as the new prelate had taken and registered his oath of fidelity to the king; and of presenting to all benefices, dependent on the see, during the time of its vacancy.

Some of the French writers assert, that all the kings of France of the first race, and some of the second, have had the entire disposal of bishoprics throughout their dominions. This right, they say, was given to the kings of France, by way of recompence for their protecting the orthodox faith; and that this privilege was granted to Clovis, the first Christian king of France, after he had defeated Alaric, an Arian prince, by the first Council of Orleans. Other authors affirm, that this privilege is not founded upon grant, but comes from the right of patronage, which the king has over all the churches in his kingdom, from his feudal right over the temporalities of benefices, and from his right of protection of ecclesiastics and the goods of the Church. But, however the kings of France have desisted from the right of patronage over all the benefices of the kingdom, they still retain the right of appropriating to themselves the revenues of vacant bishoprics; and this is what they call the Regale.

This right takes place all over the kingdom, though some archbishoprics and bishoprics have pretended to an exemption from it. The abbeys were formerly subject thereto, but have been discharged.

REGENERATE. (See Conversion, Regeneration, Renovation.) Every baptized child is called regenerate. There have been some very unreasonable exceptions taken against this expression; as if all persons, who are baptized, were truly converted, whereas several of them prove afterwards very wicked. But this objection is grounded upon a modern notion of the word “regeneration,” which neither the ancient Fathers of the Church, nor the compilers of our liturgy, knew anything of. Indeed, some writers of the last [17th] century ran into this new-fangled phrase, to denote conversion, or a returning from a lapsed state, after a notorious violation of the baptismal covenant, to an habitual state of holiness. But no ancient writer, that I know of, ever expressed this by the word “regeneration.” Regeneration, as often as it is used in the Scripture books, signifies the baptismal regeneration. There is but one word which answers to this in the New Testament, and that is, παλιγγενεσία; and that παλιγγενεσία refers to baptism is plain, by having the word λουτρὸν joined with it: “According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration.” (Tit. iii. 5.) Our SAVIOUR indeed made use of the like expression, before the apostle, to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of GOD.” (John iii. 3.) But what he means by being born again he explains, ver. 5, by directing it positively to baptism, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of GOD.” “Regeneration,” in the language of the Fathers, constantly signifies the participation of the sacrament of baptism. The Greeks have a variety of words to express regeneration by: not only ἀναγέννησις, which is an exact translation of it; but ἀνακαίνισμος, “renovation;” ἀνάκτισις, “recreation;” ἀνανέωσις, “renewing;” ἀνάστασις, “resurrection;” μεταβολὴ, the “change;” μεταποίησις, the “refitting;” παλιγγενεσία, the being “born again;” παλιντοκία, the “begetting again:” all which expressions are used of baptism, and seldom or never of the rise after a lapse. The language of the Latin Fathers is the same. The Latin translator of Irenæus, which undoubtedly is very ancient, expresses the Greek ἀναγέννησις by “regeneration:” “baptism which is a regeneration unto GOD:” and so likewise calls the ἀναγεννήμενοι, the baptized, “regenerati,” the “regenerate.” St. Ambrose, speaking of baptism, expresses himself thus: “By baptism we are renewed, by which also we are born again.” St. Austin, besides innumerable other passages, within the compass of a few lines has several expressions all to this purpose: he calls baptism “the spiritual regeneration;” he says the baptized person “is born again, because he is regenerated;” and lastly he calls baptism “the sacrament of regeneration.” And in another place he moves a question, whether the baptism of the schismatical Donatists does confer regeneration or not; but never doubted whether that of the Catholics did so. But, when any of the ancients have occasion to express a returning to GOD after a state of sin, the Greeks use the word μετάμελεια, μετάνοια, &c. &c.; the Latins, pœnitentia, conversio. The language of the schools is exactly that of the Latin Fathers in this point; they make the effect of baptism to be a “regeneration,” or a “generation to a spiritual life;” but the turning to GOD after a course of sin they call, either “penitence,” or “conversion to GOD.” The most eminent divines of the Reformation use these words in the ancient sense. Peter Martyr uses “regeneration” for baptism; and calls the turning to GOD, after a state of sin, the “conversion and change of a man.” Calvin, where he designs to speak with exactness, uses “regeneration” for the baptismal renovation, as in his catechism; though sometimes he uses it to signify conversion: but this is but seldom; he generally, with the ancient Latin writers, expressing this by “conversion.” When the Quinquarticular controversy arose, and long treatises were written about the methods of converting grace, the divines, who managed them, being willing sometimes to vary their expressions, to make these discourses, (dry enough in themselves,) thereby something more pleasant, began to use “regeneration” as a synonymous word with “conversion.” But in the Synod of Dort itself, though in some of the particular declarations of the divines of the several countries “regeneration” and “conversion” are used reciprocally, yet in the synodical resolutions the word “conversion” is always used. In the sermons and books written about the beginning of the late civil wars, “regeneration,” for “repentance” or “conversion,” became a very fashionable word; but sometimes oddly expressing it by “regeneration-work,” &c., they made sport for vain people. However, by frequent use, the word has come to obtain among grave and judicious writers, though the use of it was so very modern; insomuch that some divines, who had their education since the Quinquarticular controversy, and were concerned in the review of the liturgy at the Restoration, pretended to find fault with the Common Prayer Book for using the word “regeneration” in the ancient sense, which it had kept for 1600 years, in opposition to theirs, which was hardly sixty years old. And this is sufficient to justify the Common Prayer Book expression; and, I hope, to silence all objections upon this head.—Dr. Nicholls.

The sense of the Church in the office for Baptism is so plain, that no more would need to be added, but only that some with Nicodemus are apt to say, “How can these things be?” (John iii. 9;) judging it impossible that so great a matter as regeneration can be effected so soon, and by no mean an instrument as they account it: whereas the effect is to be ascribed to the Divine power of the author, not to the intrinsic efficacy of the outward means. Yet in regard we can never bless GOD heartily for a mercy, unless we believe he hath bestowed it, we must labour to remove these scruples by a fuller account of this baptismal regeneration, that we may not withhold the Divine praises, by our doubting and unbelief. The word “regeneration” is but twice, that I know of, used in Scripture: first, (Matt. xix. 28,) “Ye that have followed me in the regeneration:” where, though by altering the point, “Followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man,” &c., it may signify the resurrection; yet, as we read, it signifies the renewing of men by the gospel and baptism. Secondly, (Tit. iii. 5,) “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the HOLY GHOST,” which is a paraphrase upon that of our SAVIOUR, (John iii.,) “Except a man be born of water and the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” (ver. 5).

And because persons, come to age before their conversion, are first taught and persuaded by the word of GOD, the language of holy writ enlarges the metaphor, and saith, such are “begotten through the gospel” (1 Cor. iv. 15); and then born again or regenerated in baptism. In like manner speak the Fathers, who do constantly and unanimously affirm, that we are regenerated in or by baptism. So that we must next inquire, wherein this regeneration doth consist?

And first, whereas both children and those of riper years are by nature dead in sin, so that they live under the guilt and power thereof, our gracious FATHER doth here in baptism seal a covenant with us, wherein he promises to pardon us; and, when this deadly load is removed, the soul receives, as it were, a new life, and takes new hopes and courage, being restored to the Divine favour, and being set free from the sad expectations of condemnation for former sin, original in infants, and both it and actual in those of riper years. Before this covenant we were dead in law, and by the pardon of our sins we are begotten again to a lively hope; and herein stands the first particular of our regeneration, namely, in the remission of sins: wherefore both Scripture and antiquity teach us, (Luke iii. 3; Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16,) that baptism is the means for remission of sin; and hence they join pardon and regeneration commonly together, because this forgiveness puts us into a new estate, and an excellent condition, in comparison of that which our natural birth had left us in.

Secondly: But further, by baptism we gain new relations, and old things being done away, all things become new. Hence the Jews called their proselytes “new-born children,” because they forsook all their heathen kindred; so we, although we do not renounce our earthly parents, because they also are Christians, yet we gain new alliances; for GOD hereby doth become our FATHER, and JESUS our Master, and all the saints both in heaven and earth our brethren; so that it is as if we were born over again, since baptism doth entitle us to this celestial kindred.

But this is not all. For, thirdly, our corrupt nature is changed in baptism, and there is a renovation effected thereby, both as to the mortification of the old affections, and the quickening of the new, by the HOLY SPIRIT, which is hereby given to all that put no bar or impediment unto it. This was the ancients’ doctrine, who affirmed a real change to be wrought, and believed the SPIRIT to be therein bestowed, as GOD had promised, (Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26,) “That he would sprinkle clean water upon them, and they should be clean from all their filthiness, and then a new heart would he give them, and put a new spirit within them.” And it is manifest, that, in the first ages of the Church, there was abundance of gifts and graces miraculously bestowed upon Christians in their baptism; and no doubt, if the catechumens of our days, who are of age, would prepare themselves as strictly by repentance, fasting, and prayer, as they of old did, they should find incomparable effects of this sacred layer, if not in as miraculous measures, yet to as real purposes; that is, they should be truly regenerated, and their hearts changed by the influence of the Divine SPIRIT. But some may doubt whether infants be regenerated in this sense, because they are not capable of giving any evidences of their receiving the SPIRIT; nor doth there any immediate effect of their regeneration appear: hence the Pelagians denied it; but they are therefore condemned by the Milevitan Council, and confuted by St. Augustine. It is confessed they can show no visible signs of spiritual life in the operations thereof, no more can they of their having a rational soul, for some time; and yet we know they have the power of reason within them: and since all infants are alike, either all do here receive a principle of new life, or none receive it; wherefore I see no reason why we may not believe, as the ancients did, that GOD’S grace, which is dispensed according to the capacity of the suscipient, is here given to infants to heal their nature, and that he bestowed on them such measures of his Spirit as they can receive; for the malignant effects of the first Adam’s sin are not larger than the free gift obtained by the second Adam’s righteousness. (Rom. v. 15, 18.) And if it be asked, how it comes to pass then that so many children do afterwards fall off to all impurity? I answer, so do too many grown persons also; and neither infants, nor men, are so regenerated in this life, as absolutely to extinguish the concupiscence; for the flesh will still lust against the Spirit; but then GOD gives the Spirit also to lust against the flesh. (Gal. v. 17, 18.) He leaves the corruption to try and exercise us, but so that he engageth to enable us to get the better, through this new nature planted in us, if we will improve it, and follow the dictates of his Holy Spirit; but by neglect, or wilful complying with the flesh, we may lose this grace again; our gracious FATHER hath already done his part, and will do it more and more, as the child shall be capable and willing to receive it. And, if this seems strange to any whose opinions are taken up from later definitions of regeneration, let them dispute with holy Cyprian, not with me, who saith, “The grace of GOD is equally distributed in baptism, but it may either be diminished or increased afterward, by our acts and conversation.”

The sum is, that baptism doth seal a pardon to us for all former transgression, and begets us again to the hope of eternal life; that it restores us to the favour of GOD, and gives us a new relation to him; and finally it heals our nature by the SPIRIT hereby conveyed to us: and, though all this be upon condition of our keeping our part of the covenant, yet that makes not GOD’S mercy less, nor ought it to diminish any of our praises; but only it must make our prayers at present more earnest, and the child’s care more strict hereafter to make this its calling and election sure.

This is, I hope, the sense of our Church, as well as of the primitive; and if so, it will not be material to a judicious Christian for any to say, it doth not agree to some modern systems.—Dean Comber.

REGENERATION. (See Conversion and Renovation.) A Latin word signifying new birth, or being born again. We are taught in the catechism that “a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by CHRIST himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.” And we are taught also that the inward and spiritual grace given to us, which by means of baptism we receive, is “a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin and the children of wrath, we are hereby,” i. e. by baptism, “made children of grace.” Hence the catechism teaches every baptized child to speak of his baptism as that “wherein I was made a member of CHRIST, the child of GOD, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” Hence, in perfect consistency with the catechism, the minister, immediately after the administration of this sacrament to a child, addresses the congregation thus: “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of CHRIST’S Church, let us give thanks unto ALMIGHTY GOD for these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning.” And he returns thanks to our merciful FATHER, that it hath pleased him “to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit.” In the office of Private Baptism of Infants, the connexion between holy baptism and regeneration is, if possible, still more expressly asserted, for the priest, with reference to the baptism performed in private, is taught to say, on the receiving of the infant into the Church, “seeing now that this child is by baptism regenerate, and grafted into the body of CHRIST’S Church.” In the office for the Baptism of such as are of Riper Years, the connexion between baptism and regeneration is as closely observed. To many persons this doctrine is very offensive. We believe that it is repudiated by all dissenters except the Romish, who, amidst their many errors, retain this evangelical truth. As an answer to the objections urged against this scriptural doctrine, we shall quote the words of the late Mr. Simeon, of Cambridge; we do so, because we have seldom seen the truth more briefly vindicated. The following passage is from his Works, vol. ii. p. 259.

“In the baptismal service, we thank GOD for having regenerated the baptized infant by his Holy Spirit. Now from hence it appears that, in the opinion of our reformers, regeneration and remission of sins did accompany baptism. But in what sense did they hold this sentiment? Did they maintain that there was no need for the seed then sown in the heart of the baptized person to grow up and to bring forth fruit; or that he could be saved in any other way than by a progressive renovation of his soul after the Divine image? Had they asserted any such doctrine as that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened person to concur with them. But nothing can be conceived more repugnant to their sentiments than such an idea as this; so far from harbouring such a thought, they have, and that too in this very prayer, taught us to look to GOD for that total change, both of heart and life, which long since their days has begun to be expressed by the term regeneration. After thanking GOD for regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit, we are taught to pray, ‘that he, being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin;’ and then declaring the total change to be the necessary mean of his obtaining salvation, we add, ‘so that finally, with the residue of thy holy Church, he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom.’ Is there (I would ask) any person that can require more? There are two things to be noticed in reference to this subject, the term regeneration and the thing. The term occurs but twice in the Scriptures; in one place it refers to baptism, and is distinguished from the renewing of the HOLY GHOST, which, however, is represented as attendant on it; and, in the other place, it has a totally distinct meaning, unconnected with the subject. Now the term they use as the _Scripture _uses it, and the thing they require as strongly as any person can require it. They do not give us any reason to imagine that an adult person can be saved without experiencing all that modern divines [ultra-Protestant divines] have included in the term regeneration; on the contrary, they do, both there and in the liturgy, insist upon a radical change of both heart and life. Here, then, the only question is, not ‘whether a baptized person can be saved by that ordinance without sanctification,’ but whether GOD does always accompany the sign with the thing signified? Here is certainly room for difference of opinion, but it cannot be positively decided in the negative; because we cannot know, or even judge, respecting it, in any case whatever, except by the fruits that follow; and therefore, in all fairness, it may be considered only as a doubtful point; and if we appeal, as we ought to do, to the Holy Scriptures, they certainly do, in a very remarkable way, accord with the expressions in our liturgy. St. Paul says, ‘By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.’ And this he says of all the visible members of CHRIST’S body. (1 Cor. xii. 13, 27.) Again, speaking of the whole nation of Israel, infants as well as adults, he says, ‘They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was CHRIST.’ (1 Cor. x. 1–4.) Yet, behold, in the very next verse he tells us that, ‘with many of them GOD was displeased, and overthrew them in the wilderness.’ In another place he speaks yet more strongly still: ‘As many of you,’ says he, ‘as are baptized into CHRIST, have put on CHRIST.’ Here we see what is meant by the same expression as that before mentioned, of the Israelites being ‘baptized into Moses (the preposition εἰς is used in both places): it includes all that had been initiated into his religion by the rite of baptism; and of them universally does the apostle say, ‘they have put on CHRIST.’ Now I ask, have not the persons who scruple the use of that prayer in the baptismal service, equal reason to scruple the use of these different expressions?

“Again; St. Peter says, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins.’ (Acts ii. 38.) And in another place, ‘Baptism doth now save us.’ (1 Pet. iii. 21.) And speaking elsewhere of baptized persons who are unfruitful in the knowledge of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, he says, ‘He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.’ (2 Pet. i. 9.) Does not this very strongly countenance the IDEA WHICH OUR REFORMERS ENTERTAINED, THAT THE REMISSION OF OUR SINS AND THE REGENERATION OF OUR SOULS, IS ATTENDANT ON THE BAPTISMAL RITE?”

The importance of holding this doctrine, besides its being scripturally true, must be at once apparent to those who reflect, that the whole moral education of a Christian people is altered, if instead of teaching them, as we ought to do, that GOD has given them a gift which they may use to their own salvation, but for losing which they will be awfully punished,—if instead of this we tell them to wait and to expect the gift of grace, before receiving which they cannot please GOD. The orthodox would preach to all baptized persons, telling them that they may and can serve GOD if they will: the heterodox would address baptized persons as heathens, and warn them that, until they have an effectual calling, they can do nothing. It is easy to trace much of the evil which disgraces the religion of the present day to the prevalence of the latter notion.

At the Savoy Commission, 1661, the following are among the answers of the bishops to the exceptions of ministers.

“Receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration.” Most proper, for baptism is our spiritual regeneration, (John iii. 5,) “Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit,” &c. And by this is received remission of sins, (Acts ii. 38,) “Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins.” So the Creed: “our baptism for the remission of sins.”

Seeing that GOD’S sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth not “ponere obicem,” put any bar against them (which children cannot do); we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by GOD’S HOLY SPIRIT; and the denial of it tends to Anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament, as nothing worthy, nor material whether it be administered to children or no.

[The form of Confirmation] supposeth, and that truly, that all children were at their baptism regenerate by water and the Holy Ghost, and had given unto them forgiveness of all their sins; and it is charitably presumed, that notwithstanding the frailties and slips of their childhood, they have not totally lost what was in baptism conferred upon them.—Cardwell’s Hist. of Conferences, pp. 356, 358.

REGISTER. The keeping of a church book for registering the age of those that should be born and christened in the parish began in the thirtieth year of Henry VIII.

By Canon 70. “In every parish church and chapel within this realm shall be provided one parchment book at the charge of the parish, wherein shall be written the day and year of every christening, wedding, and burial, which have been in the parish since the time that the law was first made in that behalf, so far as the ancient books thereof can be procured, but especially since the beginning of the reign of the late queen. And for the safe keeping of the said book, the churchwardens, at the charge of the parish, shall provide one sure coffer, and three locks and keys; whereof one to remain with the minister, and the other two with the churchwardens severally; so that neither the minister without the two churchwardens, nor the churchwardens without the minister, shall at any time take that book out of the said coffer. And henceforth upon every sabbath day immediately after morning or evening prayer, the minister and the churchwardens shall take the said parchment book out of the said coffer, and the minister in the presence of the churchwardens shall write and record in the said book the names of all persons christened, together with the names and surnames of their parents, and also the names of all persons married and buried in that parish in the week before, and the day and year of every such christening, marriage, and burial; and that done, they shall lay up the book in the coffer as before. And the minister and churchwardens, unto every page of that book, when it shall be filled with such inscriptions, shall subscribe their names. And the churchwardens shall once every year, within one month after the five and twentieth day of March, transmit unto the bishop of the diocese, or his chancellor, a true copy of the names of all persons christened, married, or buried in their parish in the year before, (ended the said five and twentieth day of March,) and the certain days and months in which every christening, marriage, and burial was had, to be subscribed to with the hands of the said minister and churchwardens, to the end the same may faithfully be preserved in the registry of the said bishop; which certificate shall be received without fee. And if the minister and churchwardens shall be negligent in performance of anything herein contained, it shall be lawful for the bishop, or his chancellor, to convent them, and proceed against every of them as contemners of this our constitution.”

The Act 52 Geo. III. c. 146, (A. D. 1812,) directs that “registers of public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials, solemnized according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland ... shall be made and kept by the rector, vicar, curate, or officiating minister of every parish (or of any chapelry) where the ceremonies of baptism, marriage, and burial, have been usually, and may according to law be, performed for the time being, in books of parchment, or of good and durable paper, to be provided by his Majesty’s printer as occasion may require, at the expense of the respective parishes or chapelries; whereon shall be printed, upon each side of every leaf, the heads of information herein required to be entered in the registers” (agreeably to schedules annexed to the act). Such registers should be kept in separate books, and every minister shall enter the baptism, or burial, as soon as possible, and shall sign the same; “and in no case, unless prevented by sickness, or other unavoidable impediment, later than within seven days after the ceremony of any such baptism, or burial, shall have taken place.” (Sect. 3.)

“Whenever the ceremony of baptism, or burial, shall be performed in any other place than the parish church, or churchyard of any parish, (or the chapel, or chapel-yard of any chapelry, providing its own distinct registers,) and such ceremony shall be performed by any minister not being the rector, vicar, minister, or curate of any such parish or chapelry, the minister who shall perform such ceremony of baptism or burial shall, on the same, or on the next day, transmit to the rector, vicar, or other minister of such parish or chapelry, or his curate, a certificate of such baptism or burial in the form contained in the schedule (D.) to this act annexed, and the rector, vicar, minister, or curate of such parish or chapelry, shall thereupon enter such baptism or burial according to such certificate in the book kept pursuant to this act for such purpose; and shall add to such entry the following words, ‘According to the certificate of the Reverend ——, transmitted to me on the —— day of ——.’”

“I do hereby certify, that I did on the —— day of —— baptize, according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland, ——, son [or “daughter”] of —— and ——, his wife, by the name of ——.”

To the Rector [or, as the case may be,] of ——.

“‘I do hereby certify, that on the —— day of —— A. B. of ——, aged ——, was buried in [stating the place of burial], and that the ceremony of burial was performed according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland, by me, ——.

To the Rector [or, as the case may be,] of ——.’” (Sect. 4.)

Sect. 5 directs, that the new registers, and also those previously existing, shall be kept by the minister of the parish, “in a dry, well-painted, iron chest, to be provided, and repaired as occasion may require, at the cost of the parish; which chest shall be constantly kept locked in some dry, safe, and secure place within the usual place of residence of such minister, or in the parish church or chapel.”

Sect. 6 directs, that within two months after the expiration of every year, four copies of the registers for the preceding year shall be made on parchment by the clergyman, “or by the churchwardens, chapelwardens, clerk, or other person duly appointed for the purpose, under, and by the direction of, such rector, vicar, curate, or other resident or officiating minister.” The copies are to be verified and signed by the clergyman in a prescribed form, and his signature is to be attested by the churchwardens or chapelwardens, or one of them. These copies are to be sent by post to the diocesan registrars. (Sect. 7.) In case of the minister’s neglecting to verify the copies, the churchwardens shall certify his default to the registrar, by whom it shall be reported to the bishop. (Sect. 9.) Any person convicted of falsifying a register, or allowing it to be falsified, shall be subject to transportation for fourteen years. (Sect. 14.)

Sect. 16 provides, that the act shall not affect the fees payable to any minister for giving extracts of registers, &c.

The act of 52 Geo. III. is still in force as regards the registration of baptisms and burials by clergymen. But as to marriages, an alteration has been made by the acts 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 80, and 7 Will. IV., and 1 Vic. c. 22. By the former of these acts the general civil registry was instituted. Sect. 30 orders, that the Registrar-general shall, at the expense of the parish or chapelry, furnish the rector, vicar, or curate, of every church and chapel in which marriages may lawfully be solemnized, duplicate register books and forms for certified copies thereof. Sect. 31, that every clergyman, immediately after every office of matrimony solemnized by him, shall register in duplicate the several particulars relating to that marriage, according to a new form, annexed in a schedule to the act. Sect. 33, (explained by 7 Will. IV., and 1 Vic. c. 22,) that the clergyman of every church or chapel shall, in the months of April, July, October, and January respectively, make and deliver to the registrar of his district a true copy, certified by him under his hand, of all the entries of marriages in the register book kept by him for the three months preceding, to the last days of March, June, September, and December respectively; and if there shall have been no marriage since the last certificate, shall certify the fact under his hand; and that one copy of each duplicate register book shall, when filled, be delivered to the superintendent-registrar of the district. Sect. 27 of the act of 1 Vic. provides, that for every entry in the quarterly certified copies the clergyman shall receive sixpence from the registrar, which sum is to be repaid to the registrar by the guardians or overseers of his district.

By the act of 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 86, sect. 42, 43, any person who shall refuse, or without reasonable cause omit, to register any marriage solemnized by him, or which he ought to register, and every person having the custody of any register book, who shall carelessly lose or injure the same, or carelessly allow the same to be injured while in his keeping, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding £50 for every such offence; and any person who shall wilfully destroy, injure, or in any way falsify any register book, or shall wilfully give any false certificate or extract, shall be guilty of felony.

REGIUM DONUM MONEY. Money allowed by government to the Dissenters. The origin of it was in the year 1723. As the Dissenters approved themselves strong friends to the House of Brunswick, they enjoyed favour; and, being excluded all lucrative preferment in the Church, the prime minister wished to reward them for their loyalty, and, by a retaining fee, to preserve them steadfast. A considerable sum, therefore, was annually lodged with the heads of the Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, to be distributed among the necessitous ministers of their congregations.

REGULAR. In the continental churches those persons are called regulars who profess to follow a certain rule (regula) of life, and observe the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; in contradistinction to the seculars, who live comparatively in the world. The canons of the non-monastic cathedrals were called seculars.

RELICS. In the Roman Church, the remains of the bodies or clothes of saints or martyrs, and the instruments by which they were put to death, are devoutly preserved, in honour of their memory; kissed, revered, and carried in procession. The respect which was justly due to the martyrs and teachers of the Christian faith, in a few ages, increased almost to adoration; and at length adoration was really paid both to departed saints, and to relics of holy men or holy things. The abuses of the Church of Rome with respect to relics are very great and flagrant, and are justly censured in our 22nd Article.

In the early ages of the gospel, when its professors were exposed to every species of danger and persecution, it was natural for Christians to show every mark of respect, both to the bodies and to the memory of those who had suffered death in its cause. They collected their remains and buried them, not only with decency, but with all the solemnity and honour which circumstances would allow. It was also the custom for Christians to hold their religious meetings at the places where their martyrs were buried, by which they seemed as it were, united with them; and to display their attachment to their departed brethren by such rites, as were dictated by the fervour of their devout affection, and were consistent with the principles of their religion. It does not appear that this boundary was ever transgressed in the three first centuries; but in the fourth century, when the pure and simple worship of the gospel begun to be debased by superstitious practices, we find strong proofs of an excessive love for everything which had belonged to those who had distinguished themselves by their exertions or their sufferings for the truth of Christianity, and especially for any part of their garments, hair, or bones. Augustine in Africa, and Vigilantius in Spain, complained loudly of this culpable fondness for relics, which they speak of as a new corruption, then first appearing in the Christian world; but the warm disposition of Jerome led him to stand forward in their defence with more zeal than discretion. However, this learned Father, even while he leans to the opinion that miracles were sometimes wrought by relics, explicitly disclaims all idea of offering them worship. But, when superstition has once made its way into the minds of men, it gradually gains ground; and it is difficult to set limits to it, particularly when there is a set of persons, respected for their piety, who are studious to encourage it. Monks carried about relics; and with great ease, and no small advantage to themselves, persuaded that ignorant age of their value and importance. Under their recommendation and patronage, they were soon considered as the best preservatives against every possible evil of soul and body; and when the worshipping of images came to be established, the enshrining of relics was a natural consequence of that doctrine. This led the way to absolute worship of relics, which was now preached by the Romish clergy as a Christian duty. Every one thought it necessary to possess a relic of some saint or martyr, as the effectual means of securing his care and protection; and fraud and imposition did not fail to furnish a supply proportionable to the demand. The discovery of the catacombs at Rome was an inexhaustible source of relics; and thus the popes themselves became directly interested in maintaining this superstitious worship. The Council of Trent authorized the adoration of relics; and they continue in high esteem among the Papists of the present day. What has been already said is amply sufficient to point out the absurdity of worshipping relics. It is a doctrine manifestly “grounded upon no warranty of Scripture:” it is “a fond thing,” that is, foolish and trifling, in the extreme; directly contrary to the practice of the primitive Christians, and utterly irreconcileable with common sense.—Bp. Tomline.

RELIGIOUS. This was the term given in our Church before the Reformation to persons engaged by solemn vows to the monastic life. It is still used in this sense on the Continent, and among the Popish Recusants.

REMONSTRANTS. (See Arminians.) This name was given to the Arminians, because in 1610 they presented a remonstrance to the states-general of Holland and West Friesland, specifying their grievances.

RENOVATION. Regeneration is the joint work of water and the SPIRIT, or, to speak more properly, of the SPIRIT only; renovation is the joint work of the SPIRIT and the man. Regeneration comes only once, in or through baptism. Renovation exists before, in, and after baptism, and may be often repeated. Regeneration, being a single act, can have no parts, and is incapable of increase. Renovation is, in its very nature, progressive. Regeneration, though suspended as to its effects and benefits, cannot be totally lost in the present life. Renovation may be often repeated and totally lost. Dr. Waterland distinguishes between regeneration and renovation thus:—

1. Grown persons coming to baptism properly qualified, receive at once the grace of regeneration; but, however well prepared, they are not regenerate without baptism. Afterwards renovation grows more and more within them by the indwelling of the SPIRIT.

2. As to infants, their innocence and incapacity are to them instead of repentance, which they do not want, and of actual faith, which they cannot have: and they are capable of being born again, and adopted by GOD, because they bring no obstacle. They stipulate, and the HOLY SPIRIT translates them out of a state of nature into a state of grace, favour, and acceptance. In their case, regeneration precedes, and renovation follows after, and they are the temple of the SPIRIT till they defile themselves with sin.

3. As to those who fall off after regeneration, their covenant state abides, but without any saving effect, because without present renovation: but this saving effect may be repaired and recovered by repentance.

4. With respect to those who receive baptism in a state of hypocrisy or impenitency, though this sacrament can only increase their condemnation, still pardon and grace are conditionally made over to them, and the saving virtue of regeneration, which had been hitherto suspended, takes effect, when they truly repent and unfeignedly believe the gospel.

RENUNCIATION. In holy baptism, the persons baptized, or in the case of infants their sponsors in their name, are asked, “Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?” And their answer is, “I renounce them all.” This renunciation is of very great antiquity, so great indeed that its beginning cannot be traced, nor any time mentioned when it was not used; so that it is probably of apostolic origin.

REPAIRS OF CHURCHES. Anciently the bishops had the whole tithes of the diocese; a fourth part of which, in every parish, was to be applied to the repairs of the church; but, upon a release of this interest to the rectors, they were consequently acquitted of the repairs of the churches.

And by the canon law, the repair of the church belongeth to him who receiveth this fourth part; that is, to the rector, and not to the parishioners.

But custom (that is, the common law) transferreth the burden of reparation, at least of the nave of the church, upon the parishioners; and likewise sometimes of the chancel, as particularly in the city of London in many churches there.

But, generally, the parson is bound to repair the chancel. Not because the freehold is in him, for so is the freehold of the church; but by the custom of England, which hath allotted the repairs of the chancel to the parson, and the repairs of the church to the parishioners: yet so, that if the custom hath been for the parish, or the estate of a particular person, to repair the chancel, that custom shall be good.

As to the vicars, it is ordained by a constitution of Archbishop Winchelsea, that the chancel shall be repaired by the rectors and vicars, or others to whom such repair belongeth. Whereupon Lyndwood observes, that where there is both rector and vicar in the same church, they shall contribute in proportion to their benefice; which is to be understood where there is not a certain direction, order, or custom, unto which of them such reparation shall appertain.

And as rectors or spiritual persons, so also impropriators, are bound of common right to repair the chancels. This doctrine (under the limitations expressed in the foregoing paragraphs) is clear and uncontested: the only difficulty hath been in what manner they shall be compelled to do it; whether by spiritual censures only, in like manner as the parishioners are compelled to contribute to the repairs of the church, since impropriations are now become lay fees; or whether by sequestrations (as incumbents, and, as it should seem, spiritual impropriators of all kinds, may be compelled).

As to this, it is said to have been the opinion of the court of Common Pleas, that the Spiritual Court may grant sequestration upon an impropriate parsonage, for not repairing the chancel (M. 29. C. 2. 3 Keb. 829); yet by another book it is said, that the court of Common Pleas did incline that there could be no sequestration; for, being made a lay fee, the impropriation was out of the jurisdiction of the court Christian, and they were only to proceed against the person, as against another layman, for not repairing the church. (T. 22. C. 2. 2 Vent. 35.) And by the same case as reported, (2 Mod. 157,) it is said that the whole court, except Judge Atkins, were of that opinion.

On the contrary, Dr. Gibson observes, that impropriations, before they became lay fees, were undoubtedly liable to sequestration; that the king was to enjoy them in the same manner as the religious had done, and nothing was conveyed to the king at the dissolution of monasteries, but what the religious had conveyed; that is, the profits over and above the finding of Divine service, and the repairing of the chancel, and other ecclesiastical burdens: and the general saving (he says) in the 31 Henry VIII. c. 13, may be well extended to a saving of the right of the ordinary in this particular, which right he undoubtedly had by the law and the practice of the Church, which said right is not abrogated by any statute whatsoever. And he observes further these things: 1. That although (as was expressly alleged in the two cases above referred to) this power had been frequently exercised by the spiritual courts, yet no instances do appear, before these, of any opposition made. 2. That, in both the said instances, judgment was given, not upon the matter or point in hand, but upon errors found in the pleadings. 3. That one argument against the allowing the ordinary such jurisdiction was ab inconvenienti, that such allowance would be a step towards giving ordinaries a power to augment vicarages, as they might have done, and frequently did, before the dissolution.

Where there are more impropriators than one, (as is frequently the case,) and the prosecution is to be carried on by the churchwardens to compel them to repair, it seemeth advisable for the churchwardens first to call a vestry, and there (after having made a rate for the repair of the church, and other expenses necessary in the execution of their office) that the vestry make an order for the churchwardens to prosecute the impropriators, at the parish expense; in which prosecution the court will not settle the proportion amongst the impropriators, but admonish all who are made parties to the suit, to repair the chancel, under pain of excommunication. Nor will it be necessary to make every impropriator a party, but only to prove that the parties prosecuted have received tithes or other profits belonging to the rectory, sufficient to repair it; and they must settle the proportion among themselves: for it is not a suit against them for a sum of money, but for a neglect of the duty which is incumbent on all of them; though it may be advisable to make as many of them parties as can be come at with certainty.

Repairing of the chancel is a discharge from contributing to the repairs of the church. This is supposed to be the known law of the Church, in the gloss of John de Athon upon a constitution of Othobon, (hereafter mentioned,) for the reparation of chancels; and is also evident from the ground of the respective obligations upon parson and parishioners to repair, the first the chancel, the second the church, which was evidently a division of the burden, and by consequence a mutual disengaging of each from that part which the other took. And therefore as it was declared in Serjeant Davie’s case, (2 Roll’s Rep. 211,) that there could be no doubt but the impropriator was rateable to the church, for lands which were not parcel of the parsonage, notwithstanding his obligation as parson to repair the chancel; so, when this plea of the farmer of an impropriation, (2 Keb. 730, 742,) to be exempt from the parish rate because he repaired the chancel, was refused in the spiritual court, it must probably have been a plea offered to exempt other possessions also from church rates.—Gibs. 199, 200.

If there be a chapel of ease within a parish, and some part of the parish have used time out of mind, alone, without others of the parishioners, to repair the chapel of ease, and there to hear service, and to marry, and all the other things, but only they bury at the mother-church, yet they shall not be discharged of the reparation of the mother-church, but ought to contribute thereto; for the chapel was ordained only for their ease.

So in the said case, if the inhabitants who have used to repair the chapel prescribe that they have time out of mind used to repair the chapel, and by reason thereof have been discharged of the reparation of the mother-church, yet this shall not discharge them of the reparation of the mother-church, for that is not any direct prescription to be discharged thereof, but it is, by reason thereof, a prescription for the reparation of the chapel.

If the chapel be three miles distant from the mother-church, and the inhabitants who have used to come to the chapel, have used always to repair the chapel, and there marry and bury, and have never within sixty years been charged to the repair of the mother-church, yet this is not any cause to have a prohibition; but they ought to show in the spiritual court their exemption, if they have any, upon the endowment.

But if the inhabitants of a chapelry prescribe to be discharged time out of mind of the reparation of the mother-church, and they are sued for the reparation of the mother-church, a prohibition lieth upon this surmise.

If two churches be united, the repairs of the several churches shall be made as they were before the union.

Othobon. The archdeacon shall cause chancels to be repaired by those who are bound thereunto.—Ath. 112.

Reynolds. We enjoin the archdeacons and their officials, that, in the visitation of churches, they have a diligent regard to the fabric of the church, and especially of the chancel, to see if they want repair; and if they find any defects of that kind, they shall limit a certain time under a penalty, within which they shall be repaired. Also, they shall inquire by themselves or their officials in the parish where they visit, if there be aught in things or persons which wanteth to be corrected: and if they shall find any such, they shall correct the same, either then, or in the next chapter.—Lyndw.

The fabric of the church consisteth of the walls, windows, and covering.—Lyndw.

Where the penalty is not limited, the same is arbitrary (saith Lyndwood): but this cannot intend here (he says) the penalty of excommunication; inasmuch as it concerneth the parishioners ut universos, as a body or whole society, who are bound to the fabric of the body of the church: for the pain of excommunication is not inflicted upon a whole body together, although it may be inflicted upon every person severally who shall be culpable in this behalf. And the same may be observed as to the penalty of suspension which cannot fall upon the parishioners as a community or collective body. Yet the archdeacon in this case, if the defect be enormous, may enjoin a penalty, that, after the limited time shall be expired, Divine service shall not be performed in the church, until competent reparation shall be made; so that the parishioners may be punished by suspension or interdict of the place. But if there are any particular persons who are bound to contribute towards the repair, and although they be able, are not willing, or do neglect the same, such persons may be compelled by a monition to such contribution, under pain of excommunication, that so the church may not continue for a long time unrepaired, through their default.—Lyndw.

But this was before the time that churchwardens had the special charge of the repairs of the church; and it seemeth now that the process shall issue against the churchwardens, and that they may be excommunicated for disobedience.

Stratford. Forasmuch as archdeacons and other ordinaries in their visitations, finding defects as well in the churches as in the ornaments thereof, and the fences of the churchyard, and in the houses of the incumbents, do command them to be repaired under pecuniary penalties; and from those that do not obey do exact the same penalties by censures, wherewith the said defects ought to be repaired, and thereby enrich their own purses to the damage of the poor people; therefore that there be no occasion of complaint against the archdeacons and other ordinaries and their ministers by reason of such penal exactions, and that it becometh not ecclesiastical persons to gape after or enrich themselves with dishonest and penal acquisitions; we ordain, that such penalties, so often as they shall be exacted, shall be converted to the use of such repairs, under pain of suspension ab officio which they shall ipso facto incur, until they shall effectually assign what was so received to the reparation of the said defects.—Lyndw.

By Canon 86. “Every dean, dean and chapter, archdeacon, and others which have authority to hold ecclesiastical visitations by composition, law, or prescription, shall survey the churches of his or their jurisdiction once in every three years, in his own person, or cause the same to be done.”

And by the said canon they were required, from time to time, to certify the high commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, every year, of such defects in any of the said churches as he or they should find to remain unrepaired, and the names and surnames of the parties faulty therein. Upon which certificate the high commissioners were desired by the said canon, ex officio mero, to send for such parties, and compel them to obey the just and lawful decrees of the ecclesiastical ordinaries making such certificates. But by the 16 Car. I. c. 11, the High Commission Court was abolished; so that the cognizance thereof now resteth solely upon the ecclesiastical judge.

By the statute of Circumspecte agatis, (13 Edward I. st. iv.,) “If prelates do punish for that the church is uncovered, or not conveniently decked, the spiritual judge shall have power to take knowledge, notwithstanding the king’s prohibition.”

“The Church.” This is intended not only of the body of the church, which is parochial, but also of any public chapel annexed to it; but it extendeth not to the private chapel of any, though it be fixed to the church, for that must be repaired by him that hath the proper use of it, for he that hath the profit ought to bear the burden.

Canon 85. “The churchwardens or questmen shall take care and provide, that the churches be well and sufficiently repaired, and so from time to time kept and maintained, that the windows be well glazed, and that the floors be kept paved, plain, and even.”

If the churchwardens erect or add anything new in the church, as a new gallery where there was none before, they must have the consent of the major part of the parishioners, and also a licence of the ordinary.

But as to the common reparations of the fabric or ornaments of the church, where nothing new is added or done, it doth not appear that any consent of the major part of the parishioners is necessary; for to this the churchwardens are bound by their office, and they are punishable if they do it not. (See however Rate.)

If the major part of the parishioners of a parish, where there are four bells, agree that there shall be made a fifth bell, and this is made accordingly, and they make a rate for paying the same, this shall bind the lesser part of the parishioners, although they agree not to it: for otherwise any obstinate persons may hinder anything intended to be done for the ornament of the church.

And although churchwardens are not charged with the repairs of the chancel, yet they are charged with the supervisal thereof, to see that it be not permitted to dilapidate and fall into decay; and when any such dilapidations shall happen, if no care be taken to repair the same, they are to make presentment thereof at the next visitation.

If a church be so much out of repair, that it is necessary to pull it down; or so small, that it needs to be enlarged; the major part of the parishioners, having first obtained the consent of the ordinary to do what is needful, and meeting upon due notice, may make a rate for new building, or enlarging, as there shall be occasion. This was declared in the 29 Car. II. by all the three courts successively, notwithstanding the cause was much laboured by a great number of Quakers, who opposed the rate.

And the proper method of proceeding in such case seems to be thus: namely, that the churchwardens first of all take care that public notice be given in the church for a general vestry of the whole parish for that purpose; which notice ought to be attested and carefully preserved, as being the foundation of all the subsequent proceedings. At the time and place of meeting, the minister and churchwardens ought to attend; and when the parishioners are assembled, the minister is proper to preside; and he, or one of the churchwardens, or such person as shall be appointed by them, ought to enter the orders of the vestry, and then have them read and signed. And agreeable thereunto, a petition to the ordinary for a faculty (setting forth the particulars) should be drawn up and signed by the minister, churchwardens, and parishioners present, and approving thereof. Whereupon the ordinary will issue a monition to cite all persons concerned to show cause why a faculty should not be granted. Upon the return of which citation, if no cause, or not sufficient cause, is showed, the ordinary will proceed to grant a faculty as is desired, and as to him shall seem good.

REPENTANCE (see Penitence, Penance) signifies a sincere sorrow for all past transgressions of GOD’S laws, an unfeigned disposition of mind to perform the will of GOD better for the future, and an actual avoiding and resisting of those temptations to sin by which we have been overpowered.

REREDOS. A screen behind an altar. In large conventual churches, where there is a space behind the high altar, this was the universal termination of the ritual presbytery; and sometimes, as at Winchester, St. Alban’s, and Durham, this screen was of extreme magnificence. In smaller churches, where the reredos was not required, the altar being at the extreme east, it is seldom found, though an arcade, or other enrichment of the space beneath and at the sides of the east window, sometimes occurs.

RESIDENCE. 1. Otho. The bishop shall provide, that in every church there shall be one resident, who shall take care of the cure of souls, and exercise himself profitably and honestly in performing Divine service and administration of the sacraments.—Athon 36.

The rule of the ancient canon law was, that if a clergyman deserted his church or prebend, without just and necessary cause, and especially without the consent of the diocesan, he should be deprived. And agreeable hereunto was the practice in this realm; for though sometimes the bishop proceeded only to sequestration, or other censures of an inferior nature, yet the more frequent punishment was deprivation.—Gibson, 827.

2. Regularly, personal residence is required of ecclesiastical persons upon their cures; and to that end, by the common law, if he that hath a benefice with cure be chosen to an office of bailiff, or beadle, or the like secular office, he may have the king’s writ for his discharge.—2 Inst. 625.

For the intendment of the common law is, that a clerk is resident upon his cure; insomuch that in an action of debt brought against J. S., rector of D., the defendant pleading that he was demurrant and conversant at B. in another county, the plea was overruled; for, since the defendant denied not that he was rector of the church of D., he shall be deemed by law to be demurrant and conversant there for the cure of souls.—2 Inst.

3. By the statute of the Articuli cleri, (9 Edw. II. st. i. c. 8,) in the articles exhibited by the clergy, one is as follows: Also barons of the king’s Exchequer, claiming by their privilege, that they ought to make answer to no complainant out of the same place, do extend the same privilege unto clerks abiding there, called to orders or unto residence, and inhibit ordinaries that by no means, or for any cause, so long as they be in the Exchequer, or in the king’s services, they shall not call them to judgment. “Unto which it is answered,” It pleaseth our lord the king, that such clerks as attend in his service, if they offend, shall be correct by their ordinaries, like as other; but so long as they are occupied about the Exchequer, they shall not be bound to keep residence in their churches. And this is added of new by the king’s council: “The king and his ancestors, since time out of mind, have used that clerks which are employed in his service, during such time as they are in service, shall not be compelled to keep residence at their benefices; and such things as be thought necessary for the king and commonwealth, ought not to be said to be prejudicial to the liberty of the Church.”

By the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, commonly called the statute of Non-residence: As well every spiritual person, now being promoted to any archdeaconry, deanery, or dignity in any monastery, or cathedral church, or other church conventual or collegiate, or being beneficed with any parsonage or vicarage; as all and every spiritual person and persons, which hereafter shall be promoted to any of the said dignities or benefices, with any parsonage or vicarage, shall be personally resident and abiding in, at, and upon his said dignity, prebend, or benefice, or at any one of them at the least; and in case he shall not keep residence at one of them as aforesaid, but absent himself wilfully by the space of one month together, or by the space of two months to be at several times in any one year, and make his residence and abiding in any other places by such time, he shall forfeit for every such default £10, half to the king, and half to him that will sue for the same in any of the king’s courts by original writ of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in which action and suit the defendant shall not wage his law, nor have any essoin or protection allowed. (S. 26.)

And if any person or persons shall procure at the court of Rome, or elsewhere, any licence or dispensation to be non-resident at their said dignities, prebends, or benefices, contrary to this act; every such person, putting in execution any such dispensation or licence for himself, shall incur the penalty of £20 for every time so doing, to be forfeited and recovered as aforesaid, and such licence or dispensation shall be void. (S. 27.)

Provided that this act of non-residence shall not extend nor be prejudicial to any such spiritual person as shall chance to be in the king’s service beyond the sea, nor to any person going to any pilgrimage or holy place beyond the sea, during the time that they shall so be in the king’s service, or in the pilgrimage going and returning home; nor to any scholar or scholars being conversant and abiding for study, without fraud or covin, at any university within this realm or without; nor to any of the chaplains of the king or queen, daily or quarterly attending and abiding in the king’s or queen’s most honourable household; nor to any of the chaplains of the prince or princess, or any of the king’s or queen’s children, brethren, or sisters, attending daily in their honourable households, during so long as they shall attend in any of their households; nor to any chaplain of any archbishop or bishop, or of any spiritual or temporal lords of the parliament, daily attending, abiding, and remaining in any of their honourable households; nor to any chaplain of any duchess, marquess, countess, viscountess, or baroness, attending daily and abiding in any of their honourable households; nor to any chaplain of the lord chancellor, or treasurer of England, the king’s chamberlain, or steward of his household for the time being, the treasurer and comptroller of the king’s most honourable household for the time being, attending daily in any of their honourable households; nor to any chaplain of any of the knights of the honourable order of the Garter, or of the chief justice of the King’s Bench, warden of the ports, or of the master of the rolls, nor to any chaplain of the king’s secretary, dean of the chapel, amner for the time being, daily attending and dwelling in any of their households, during the time that they shall so abide and dwell without fraud or covin, in any of the said honourable households; nor to the master of the rolls, or dean of the arches, nor to any chancellor or commissary of any archbishop or bishop, nor to as many of the twelve masters of the chancery and twelve advocates of the arches as shall be spiritual men, during so long time as they shall occupy their said rooms and offices; nor to any such spiritual persons as shall happen by injunction of the lord chancellor, or the king’s council, to be bound to any daily appearance and attendance to answer to the law, during the time of such injunction. (S. 28.)

Provided also, that it shall be lawful to the king to give licence to every of his own chaplains, for non-residence upon their benefices; anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding. (S. 29.)

Provided also, that every duchess, marquess, countess, baroness, widows, which shall take any husbands under the degree of a baron, may take such number of chaplains as they might have done being widows; and that every such chaplain may have like liberty of non-residence, as they might have had if their said ladies and mistresses had kept themselves widows. (S. 33.) [This statute is abstracted from Burn in order to show the history of the law regarding residence, but it was repealed by the 57 Geo. III. c. 99, and that act also was repealed, and the whole question resettled, in 1838, by 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106, which is abstracted towards the end of this article.]

By the 25 Hen. VIII. c. 16. Whereas by the statute of the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, it was ordained, that certain honourable persons, as well spiritual as temporal, shall have chaplains beneficed with cure to serve them in their honourable houses, which chaplains shall not incur the danger of any penalty or forfeiture made or declared in the same parliament, for non-residence upon their said benefices; in which act no provision was made for any of the king’s judges of his high courts, commonly called the King’s Bench and the Common Pleas, except only for the chief judge of the King’s Bench, nor for the chancellor nor the chief baron of the king’s Exchequer, nor for any other inferior persons being of the king’s most honourable council: It is therefore enacted, that as well every judge of the said high courts, and the chancellor and chief baron of the Exchequer, the king’s general attorney and general solicitor, for the time that shall be, shall and may retain and have in his house, or attendant to his person, one chaplain having one benefice with cure of souls, which may be absent from his said benefice, and not resident upon the same; the said statute made in the said one and twentieth year, or any other statute, act, or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding.

By the 28 Hen. VIII. c. 13. Whereas divers persons, under colour of the proviso in the act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13., which exempteth persons conversant in the universities for study, from the penalty of non-residence, contained in the said act, do resort to the universities, where, under pretence of study, they live dissolutely, nothing profiting themselves by study at all, but consume the time in idleness and other pastimes: It is enacted, that all persons who shall be to any benefice or benefices promoted, as is aforesaid, being above the age of forty years, the chancellor, vice-chancellor, commissary of the said universities, wardens, deans, provosts, presidents, rectors, masters, principals, and other head rulers of colleges, halls, and other houses or places corporate within the said universities, doctors of the chair, (readers of divinity in the common schools of divinity in the said universities only excepted,) shall be resident and abiding at and upon one of their said benefices, according to the intent and true meaning of the said former act, upon such pain and penalties as be contained in the said former act, made and appointed for such beneficed persons for their non-residence; and that none of the said beneficed persons, being above the age aforesaid, except before except, shall be excused of their non-residence upon the said benefices, for that they be students or resiants within the said universities; any proviso, or any other clause or sentence, contained in the said former act of non-residence, or any other thing to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.

And further, that all and singular such beneficed persons, being under the age of forty years, resident and abiding within the said universities, shall not enjoy the privilege and liberty of non-residence, contained in the proviso of the said former act, unless he or they be present at the ordinary lecture and lectures, as well at home in their houses, as in the common school or schools, and in their proper person keep sophisms, problems, disputations, and other exercises of learning, and be opponent and respondent in the same, according to the ordinance and statutes of the said universities; anything contained in the said proviso, or former act, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Provided always, that nothing in this act shall extend to any person who shall be reader of any public or common lecture in divinity, law civil, physic, philosophy, humanity, or any of the liberal sciences, or public or common interpreter or teacher of the Hebrew tongue, Chaldee, or Greek; nor to any persons above the age of forty years, who shall resort to any of the said universities to proceed doctors in divinity, law civil, or physic, for the time of their said proceedings, and executing of such sermons, disputations, or lectures, which they be bound by the statutes of the universities there to do for the said degrees so obtained.

By the 33 Hen. VIII. c. 28. Whereas by the act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, it was ordained, that certain honourable persons, and other of the king’s counsellors and officers, as well spiritual as temporal, should and might have chaplains beneficed with cure, to serve and attend upon them in their houses, which chaplains shall not incur the danger of any penalty or forfeiture made or declared in the said act for non-residence upon their said benefices; in which act no provision is made for any of the head officers of the king’s courts of the duchy of Lancaster, the courts of augmentations of the revenues of the Crown, the first-fruits and tenths, the master of his Majesty’s wards and liveries, the general surveyors of his lands, and other his Majesty’s court: It is therefore enacted, that the chancellor of the said court of the duchy of Lancaster, the chancellor of the court of augmentations, the chancellor of the court of first-fruits and tenths, the master of his Majesty’s wards and liveries, and every of the king’s general surveyors of his lands, the treasurer of his chamber, and the groom of the stole, and every of them, shall and may retain in his house, or attendant unto his person, one chaplain having one benefice with cure of souls, which may be absent from the said benefice, and non-resident upon the same; the said statute made in the said twenty-first year of his Majesty’s reign, or any other statute, act, or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding.

Provided always, that every of the said chaplains so being beneficed as aforesaid, and dwelling with any the officers aforenamed, shall repair twice a year at the least to his said benefice and cure, and there abide for eight days at every such time at the least, to visit and instruct his said cure; on pain of forty shillings for every time so failing, half to the king, and half to him that will sue for the same in any of the king’s courts of record, in which suit no essoin, protection, or wager of law shall be allowed.

And here the question comes to be reconsidered, How far these statutes, taken together, do supersede the canon law, so as to take away the power which the ordinary had before, of enjoining residence to the clergy of his diocese? It seems to be clear, that, before these statutes, the bishops of this realm had and exercised a power of calling their clergy to residence: but more frequently they did not exert this power, which so far forth was to the clergy a virtual dispensation for non-residence. But this not exerting of their power was in them not always voluntary; for they were under the controlling influence of the pope, who granted dispensations of non-residence to as many as would purchase them, and disposed of abundance of ecclesiastical preferments to foreigners who never resided here at all. The king also, as appears, had a power to require the service of clergymen; and consequently in such case to dispense with them for non-residence upon their benefices. This power of the king is reserved to him by the aforesaid act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13. But it is the power of dispensation in the two former cases which is intended to be taken away, namely, by the bishop and by the pope; and by the said act residence is enjoined to the clergy under the penalty therein mentioned, notwithstanding any dispensation to the contrary, from the court of Rome or elsewhere; with a proviso nevertheless, that the said act shall not extend nor be prejudicial to the chaplains and others therein specially excepted. It is argued, that this act being made to rectify what had been insufficient or ineffectual in the canon law, and inflicting a temporal penalty to enforce the obligation of residence, the parliament intended that the said act should be from thenceforth, if not the sole, yet the principal, rule of proceeding in this particular; and consequently, that the persons excepted in the act need no other exemption than what is given to them by the act for their non-residence. Unto this it is answered, that the intention of the act was not to take away any power which the bishop had of enjoining residence, but the contrary; namely, it was to take away that power which the bishop or pope exercised, of granting dispensations for non-residence; that is to say, the act left to them that power which was beneficial, and only took from them that which tended to the detriment of the Church; and consequently, that the bishop may enjoin residence to the clergy as he might before, only he may not dispense with them as he did before for non-residence. And indeed, from anything that appears upon the face of the act, the contrary supposition seemeth to bear somewhat hard against the rule, which hath generally been adhered to in the construction of acts of parliament, that an act of parliament in the affirmative doth not take away the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that the same shall not be taken away in any act of parliament but by express words. It is, therefore, further urged, that the three subsequent acts do explain this act, and by the express words thereof do establish the aforegoing interpretation. In the first of the three it is said, that the persons therein mentioned may retain one chaplain, which may be absent from his benefice, and not resident upon the same; in the second it is said, that persons above forty years of age residing in the universities shall not be excused of their non-residence; and again, that persons under forty years of age shall not enjoy the privilege of non-residence, contained in the proviso of the said former act, unless they perform the common exercises there, and the like, which implies, that, if they do this, they shall enjoy such privilege; and in the third it is said, that the persons therein mentioned may retain one chaplain, which may be absent from his benefice, and non-resident upon the same; and it is not to be supposed, that the parliament intended a greater privilege to the chaplains of the inferior officers mentioned in the said last act, than to the chaplains of the royal family and principal nobility mentioned in the first act. Unto this the most apposite answer seemeth to be, that it is not expressed absolutely in any of the said three acts, that the chaplains or others therein mentioned shall enjoy the privilege of non-residence, or may be absent from their benefices, and not resident upon the same; but only this, that they may be absent or non-resident as aforesaid, the said statute made in the said twenty-first year, or any other statute or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding. So that they are only exempted thereby from the restraints introduced by the statute law, but in other respects are left as they were before. But concerning this, although it is a case likely enough to happen every day, there hath been no adjudication.

Peccham. We do decree, that rectors who do not make personal residence in their churches, and who have no vicars, shall exhibit the grace of hospitality by their stewards according to the ability of the church; so that at least the extreme necessity of the poor parishioners be relieved; and they who come there, and in their passage preach the word of GOD, may receive necessary sustenance, that the churches be not justly forsaken of the preachers through the violence of want; for the workman is worthy of his meat, and no man is obliged to warfare at his own cost.

By the 13 Eliz. c. 20. That the livings appointed for ecclesiastical ministers may not by corrupt and indirect dealings be transferred to other uses, it is enacted, that no lease to be made of any benefice or ecclesiastical promotion with cure, or any part thereof, and not being impropriated, shall endure any longer than while the lessor shall be ordinarily resident, and serving the cure of such benefice, without absence, above fourscore days in any one year; but every such lease, immediately upon such absence, shall cease and be void; and the incumbent so offending shall for the same lose one year’s profit of his said benefice, to be distributed by the ordinary among the poor of the parish: and all chargings of such benefices with cure with any pension, or with any profit out of the same to be yielded or taken, other than rents reserved upon leases, shall be void. (S. 1.)

Provided, that every parson, by the laws of this realm allowed to have two benefices, may demise the one of them, upon which he shall not then be most ordinarily resident, to his curate only that shall serve the cure for him; but such lease shall endure no longer than during such curate’s residence without absence above forty days in any one year. (S. 2.)

H. 1724. Mills and Etheridge. Bill by the lessee of Matthew Hawes, clerk, setting forth his lease dated Feb. 4, 1723, of the tithes for 1724 and 1725, in the parish of Simpson, in the county of Buckingham. The defendant pleaded, that it appears by the plaintiff’s bill, that his lease was dated Feb. 4, 1723; then pleads the statute of the 13 Eliz. c. 20, and avers, that Matthew Hawes the lessor was absent from his benefice eighty days and more in one year since the lease, and before the filing of the bill; that the church of Simpson is not impropriate; and that it is a benefice or ecclesiastical promotion with cure; and therefore, by such non-residence, and by virtue of the said act, that the lease was void. And the plea was allowed: and it was determined that, there is no necessity to aver that the absence was voluntary, (for if it was otherwise, it lay upon the plaintiff to show it,) or to aver that the absence was eighty days together.—Bunb. 210.

The same plea came on E., 1726, in the case of Quilter and Lowndes, and allowed by the whole court.—Bunb. 211.

But, query, says the reporter, if this is a good plea if the rector and lessee join; for by non-residence before sentence he only forfeits his lease and rent, not his tithes.—Atkinson and Prodgers v. Peasley, Bunb. 211.

Bishops are not punishable by the statute of the 21 Hen. VIII. for non-residence upon their bishoprics; but although an archbishop or bishop be not tied to be resident upon his bishopric by the statute, yet they are thereto obliged by the ecclesiastical law, and may be compelled to keep residence by ecclesiastical censures.—Watson, c. 37.

Thus, by a constitution of Archbishop Langton, bishops shall be careful to reside in their cathedrals, on some of the greater feasts, and at least in some part of Lent, as they shall see to be expedient for the welfare of their souls.—Lynd. 130.

And by a constitution of Otho: What is incumbent upon the venerable fathers, the archbishops and bishops, by their office to be done, their name of dignity, which is that of bishop (episcopus) or superintendent, evidently expresseth. For it properly concerns them (according to the gospel expression) to watch over their flock by night. And since they ought to be a pattern by which they who are subject to them ought to reform themselves, which cannot be done unless they show them an example, we exhort them in the LORD, and admonish them, that, residing at their cathedral churches, they celebrate proper masses on the principal feast days, and in Lent, and in Advent. And they shall go about their dioceses at proper seasons, correcting and reforming the churches, consecrating and sowing the word of life in the LORD’S field. For the better performance of all which they shall twice in the year, to wit, in Advent and in Lent, cause to be read unto them the profession which they made at their consecration.—Athon, 55.

And by a constitution of Othobon: Although bishops know themselves bound, as well by Divine as ecclesiastical precepts, to personal residence with the flock of GOD committed to them, yet because there are some who do not seem to attend hereunto, therefore we, pursuing the monition of Otho the legate, do earnestly exhort them in the LORD, and admonish them in virtue of their holy obedience, and under attestation of the Divine judgments, that, out of care to their flock, and for the solace of the churches espoused to them, they be duly present, especially on solemn days, in Lent and in Advent, unless their absence on such days shall be required for just cause by their superiors.—Athon, 118.

Canon 42. “Every dean, master, or warden, or chief governor of any cathedral or collegiate church, shall be resident in the same fourscore and ten days conjunctim or divisim in every year at the least, and then shall continue there in preaching the word of GOD, and keeping good hospitality, except he shall be otherwise let with weighty and urgent causes, to be approved by the bishop of the diocese, or in any other lawful sort dispensed with.”

“To be approved by the bishop.”—By the ancient canon law, personal attendance on the bishop, or study in the university, was a just cause of non-residence; and as such, notwithstanding the non-residence, entitled them to all profits, except quotidians.—Gibson, 172.

Canon 44. “No prebendaries nor canons in cathedral or collegiate churches, having one or more benefices with cure, (and not being residentiaries in the same cathedral or collegiate churches,) shall, under colour of their said prebends, absent themselves from their benefices with cure above the space of one month in the year, unless it be for some urgent cause, and certain time to be allowed by the bishop of the diocese. And such of the said canons and prebendaries, as by the ordinances of the cathedral or collegiate churches do stand bound to be resident in the same, shall so among themselves sort and proportion the times of the year, concerning residence to be kept in the said churches, as that some of them always shall be personally resident there; and all those who be, or shall be, residentiaries in any cathedral or collegiate church, shall, after the days of their residency appointed by their local statutes or custom expired, presently repair to their benefices, or some one of them, or to some other charge where the law requireth their presence, there to discharge their duties according to the laws in that case provided. And the bishop of the diocese shall see the same to be duly performed and put in execution.”

So that, besides the general laws directing the residence of other clergymen, these dignitaries have another law peculiar to themselves, namely, the local statutes of their respective foundations, the validity of which local statutes this canon supposeth and affirmeth. And with respect to the new foundations in particular, the act of parliament of the 6 Anne, c. 21, enacteth, that their local statutes shall be in force, so far as they are not contrary to the constitution of the Church of England, or the laws of the land. This canon is undoubtedly a part of the constitution of the Church; so that if the canon interfereth in any respect with the said local statutes, the canon is to be preferred, and the local statutes to be in force only so far forth as they are modified and regulated by the canon.

There doth not appear to be any difference, either by the ecclesiastical or temporal laws of this kingdom, between the case of a rector and of a vicar concerning residence; except only that the vicar is sworn to reside, (with a proviso, unless he shall be otherwise dispensed withal by his diocesan,) and the rector is not sworn. And the reason of this difference was this: in the Council of Lateran, held under Alexander III., and in another Lateran council held under Innocent III., there were very strict canons made against pluralities: by the first of these councils, pluralities are restrained, and every person admitted ad ecclesiam, vel ecclesiasticum ministerium, is bound to reside there, and personally serve the cure; by the second of these councils, if any person, having one benefice with cure of souls, accepts of a second, his first is declared void ipso jure. These canons were received in England, and are still part of our ecclesiastical law. At the first appearance of these canons, there was no doubt made but they obliged all rectors; for they, according to the language of the law, had churches in title, and had beneficium ecclesiasticum: and of such the canons spoke. But vicars did not then look upon themselves to be bound by these canons, for they, as the gloss upon the decretals speaks, had not ecclesiam quoad titulum; and the text of the law describes them not as having benefices, but as bound personis et ecclesiis deservire; that is, as assistant to the rector in his church.

Upon this notion practice was founded and prevailed in England, which eluded the canons made against pluralities. A man beneficed in one church could not accept another, without avoiding the first; but a man possessed of a benefice could accept a vicarage under the rector in another church, for that was no benefice in law, and therefore not within the letter of the canon, which forbids any man holding two benefices.

The way then of taking a second living in fraud of the canon was this: a friend was presented, who took the institution, and had the church quoad titulum: as soon as he was possessed, he constituted the person vicar for whose benefit he took the living, and by consent of the diocesan allotted the whole profit of the living for the vicar’s portion, except a small matter reserved to himself.

This vicar went and resided upon his first living, for the canon reached him where he had the benefice; but having no benefice where he had only a vicarage, he thought himself secure against the said canons requiring residence.

This piece of management gave occasion to several papal decrees, and to the following constitution of Archbishop Langton, viz. “No ordinary shall admit any one to a vicarage, who will not personally officiate there.”—Lyndwood, 64.

And to another constitution of the same archbishop, by which it is enjoined, that vicars who will be non-resident shall be deprived.—Lyndwood, 131.

But the abuse still continued, and therefore Otho, in his legatine constitutions, applied a stronger remedy, ordaining, that none shall be admitted to a vicarage, but who, renouncing all other benefices (if he hath any) with cure of souls, shall swear that he will make residence there, and shall constantly so reside: otherwise his institution shall be null, and the vicarage shall be given to another.—Athon, 24.

And it is upon the authority of this constitution that the oath of residence is administered to vicars to this day. And this obligation of vicars to residence was further enforced by a constitution of Othobon, as followeth: If any shall detain a vicarage contrary to the aforesaid constitution of Otho, he shall not appropriate to himself the profits thereof, but shall restore the same; one moiety whereof shall be applied to the use of that church, and the other moiety shall be distributed half to the poor of the parish and half to the archdeacon. And the archdeacon shall make diligent inquiry every year, and cause this constitution to be strictly observed. And if he shall find that any one detaineth a vicarage contrary to the premises, he shall forthwith notify to the ordinary that such vicarage is vacant, who shall do what to him belongeth in the premises; and if the ordinary shall delay to institute another into such vicarage, he shall be suspended from collation, institution, or presentation to any benefices until he shall comply. And if any one shall strive to detain a vicarage contrary to the premises, and persist in his obstinacy for a month; he shall, besides the penalties aforesaid, be ipso facto deprived of his other benefices (if he have any); and shall be disabled for ever to hold such vicarage which he hath so vexatiously detained, and from obtaining any other benefice for three years. And if the archdeacon shall be remiss in the premises, he shall be deprived of the share of the aforesaid penalty assigned to him, and be suspended from the entrance of the church until he shall perform his duty.—Athon, 95.

So that, upon the whole, the doubt was not, whether rectors were obliged to residence; the only question was, whether vicars were also obliged; and to enforce the residence of vicars, in like manner as of rectors, the aforesaid constitutions were ordained.—Sherl. ibid. 20–22.

Canon 47. “Every beneficed man licensed by the laws of this realm, upon urgent occasions of other service, not to reside upon his benefice, shall cause his cure to be supplied by a curate that is a sufficient and licensed preacher, if the worth of the benefice will bear it. But whosoever hath two benefices, shall maintain a preacher licensed in the benefice where he doth not reside, except he preach himself at both of them usually.”

And by the last article of Archbishop Wake’s directions it is required, that the bishop shall take care, as much as possible, that whosoever is admitted to serve any cure, do reside in the parish where he is to serve, especially in livings that are able to support a resident curate; and where that cannot be done, that they do at least reside so near to the place, that they may conveniently perform all their duties, both in the church and parish.

By the faculty of dispensation, a pluralist is required, in that benefice from which he shall happen to be most absent, to preach thirteen sermons every year; and to exercise hospitality for two months yearly; and, as much as in him lieth, to support and relieve the inhabitants of that parish, especially the poor and needy.

By the 1 Will. & Mar. c. 26. If any person presented or nominated by either of the universities to a popish benefice with cure, shall be absent from the same above the space of sixty days in any one year; in such case, the said benefice shall become void.—Abridged from Burn.

The 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106 repeals the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, and the 57 Geo. III. c. 99, relating to residence, and provides (s. 32) that every spiritual person holding any benefice shall keep residence on his benefice, and in the house of residence (if any) belonging thereto; and if any such person shall without any such licence or exemption, as is in this act allowed for that purpose, or unless he shall be resident at some other benefice of which he may be possessed, absent himself from such benefice, or from such house of residence, if any, for any period exceeding the space of three months together, or to be accounted at several times in any one year, he shall, when such absence shall exceed three months, and not exceed six months, forfeit one third part of the annual value of the benefice from which he shall so absent himself; and when such absence shall exceed six months, and not exceed eight months, one half part of such annual value; and when such absence shall exceed eight months, two third parts of such annual value; and when such absence shall have been for the whole year, three fourth parts of such annual value.

By sect. 33, the bishop may give licence to reside out of the usual house if it be unfit, or, if there be no house, in some convenient house, although not within such benefice.

By sect. 34, houses purchased by governors of Queen Anne’s bounty, to be deemed the lawful houses of residence.

By sect. 41, the incumbent is bound to keep in repair the house of residence, whether he reside in it or not. And for neglect of this he is to be subject to all the penalties of non-residence. For various exceptional cases, in which non-residence may be permitted, see sections 37, 38, 43, 44, &c.

By sect. 53, it is enacted, that in every year the bishop of every diocese is to make a return to her Majesty in council of the name of every benefice within his diocese, and the names of the several spiritual persons holding the same respectively, distinguishing those who are resident and those who are not resident, and stating whether they have exemption or not.

Sect. 59 contains strong provisions for the punishment of any one who holds a residence belonging to a benefice which has been let to him, and refuses to vacate after the incumbent is ordered to reside, and for enabling the incumbent to obtain possession of his residence by summary means.

Sect. 76 provides, that the curate under certain circumstances shall be required to reside.

This statute contains many provisions for enabling the ordinary to provide a residence where none exists.

RESIDENTIARY. The capitular members of cathedrals, who are bound to reside at the cathedral church, to perform the ordinary duties there, and to attend more immediately to its concerns. In England, all cathedrals of the old foundations have residentiaries, (canons residentiary, as they are usually called,) the great majority of prebendaries being nonresidentiary. Till the late parliamentary alterations, the greatest number of residentiaries was nine, the smallest four, the dean being always one. The following account of residentiaries is abridged from Churton’s admirable and instructive Life of Dean Nowell, (pp. 313, et seq.)

We learn from the ancient statutes of St. Paul’s, that it was customary in early days for all the canons or prebendaries to reside, being thirty in number; and when, in process of time, many, by mutual connivance, withdrew themselves to their cures or avocations elsewhere, the remaining few bound themselves by a new oath, to reside, and attend the duties of the Church.... At length the residentiaries were reduced to two only.... Bishop Braybrooke, to remedy this abuse, having interposed his authority, the matter was referred to arbitration of the Crown, by whom, in 1399, an order was made that residence should thereafter be kept according to the form of the Sarum Missal.... In Dean Colet’s time the statutes were revised, and it was ordered, that as the burdens of St. Paul’s were heavy, and the patrimony slender, there should in future be, under the dean as head, four, and only four, canons resident; eligible, as before, out of the senior prebendaries, offering themselves and protesting their residence, as formerly, at one of the quarterly feasts; when, if none came forward, some one should be invited to accept the office, and in case of refusal, be amerced by some pecuniary fine. The residentiaries of St. Paul’s, (p. 312,) though, in point of form, they are elective by the dean and chapter, are virtually, however, as is well known, in the patronage of the Crown; and upon every vacancy that occurs, a letter missive from his Majesty recommending some clerk, who is previously a prebendary by the collation of the bishop of London, is as certain in its operation, as the congè d’élire for the election of a bishop: by resistance, in one case, as well as the other, a præmunire would be incurred. Archdeacon Churton adds, (p. 316,) that “in the cathedral of Lincoln, the custom, in ancient times, was similar to what appears to have been the rule in St. Paul’s. Of the numerous body of prebendaries, members of that church, any one who chose it, used to protest in chapter his intention to become a residentiary, and they were obliged to admit him accordingly, upon taking the usual oath. A practice so variable and uncertain as this, being found inconvenient in many respects, it was settled and agreed in a general chapter, about three hundred years ago, with the concurrence of the bishops, that the number of residentiaries should be limited to four, who were to be the four principal persons (see Persona) of the church, as the dean, precentor, chancellor, and subdean. An alteration not very dissimilar took place at a later period, 1697, in the church of York; when, in consequence of a representation from the dean and chapter, the number of residentiaries was reduced, under a writ of privy seal, from six to four, now, as formerly, in the nomination of the dean.”

To these observations of Archdeacon Churton may be added, that at Chichester, the chapter called on whom they pleased to reside, generally observing seniority. The same rule prevailed at Hereford, where the residentiaries are still elected by the chapter. In most cathedrals residence was protested (as stated above) at one of the great chapters. Forty days’ notice was given at Lichfield. (See Dugdale’s Monasticon, ed. 1830, and Dugdale’s St. Paul’s.) The present number of residentiaries at Exeter was fixed by Bishop Ward, in 1663.

From the ancient documents appended to Dugdale’s History of St. Paul’s, it appears by more than one explicit declaration, that all the residentiaries were required to reside together, not merely dividing the year between them, according to the present most reprehensible arrangement. They were allowed to serve no other church whatever. They were required to be all present together at all services on Sundays and greater holidays, and so to manage between themselves on ordinary week days, that one at least should be present at each one of them [and it must be remembered that the daily services were then more numerous than now]. And if they neglected this perpetual residence, from which only occasional absence, as to parish clergymen from their cures, was permitted, they were not considered as entitled to their emoluments; and their neglect is censured in the old records, in terms of the strongest reprobation.

RESIGNATION. 1. A resignation is, where a parson, vicar, or other beneficed clergyman, voluntarily gives up and surrenders his charge and preferment to those from whom he received the same.—Deg. p. i. c. 14.

2. That ordinary who hath the power of institution, hath power also to accept of a resignation made of the same church to which he may institute; and therefore the respective bishop, or other person who, either by patent under him, or by privilege or prescription, hath the power of institution, are the proper persons to whom a resignation ought to be made. And yet a resignation of a deanery in the king’s gift may be made to the king; as of the deanery of Wells. And some hold, that the resignation may well be made to the king of a prebend that is no donative: but others, on the contrary, have held, that a resignation of a prebend ought to be made only to the ordinary of the diocese, and not to the king as supreme ordinary; because the king is not bound to give notice to the patron (as the ordinary is) of the resignation; nor can the king make a collation by himself without presenting to the bishop, notwithstanding his supremacy.—2 Roll’s Abr. 358. Watson, c. 4.

And resignation can only be made to a superior: this is a maxim in the temporal law, and is applied by Lord Coke to the ecclesiastical law, when he says, that therefore a bishop cannot resign to the dean and chapter, but it must be to the metropolitan from whom he received confirmation and consecration.—Gibson, 822.

And it must be made to the next immediate superior, and not to the mediate; as of a church presentative to the bishop, and not to the metropolitan.—2 Roll’s Abr. 358.

But donatives are not resignable to the ordinary; but to the patron, who hath power to admit.—Gibson, 822.

And if there be two patrons of a donative and the incumbent resign to one of them, it is good for the whole.—Deg. p. i. c. 14.

3. Regularly resignation must be made in person, and not by proxy. There is indeed a writ in the register, entitled, litera procuratoria ad resignandum, by which the person constituted proctor was enabled to do all things necessary to be done in order to an exchange; and, of these things, resignation was one. And Lyndwood supposeth, that any resignation may be made by proctor. But in practice there is no way (as it seemeth) of resigning, but either to do it by personal appearance before the ordinary, or at least to do it elsewhere before a public notary, by an instrument directed immediately to the ordinary, and attested by the said notary; in order to be presented to the ordinary, by such proper hand as may pray his acceptance. In which case the person presenting the instrument to the ordinary doth not resign nomine procuratorio, as proctors do; but only presents the resignation of the person already made.—Gibson, 822. Deg. p. i. c. 14. Watson, c. 4.

4. A collateral condition may not be annexed to the resignation, no more than an ordinary may admit upon condition, or a judgment be confessed upon condition, which are judicial acts.—Watson, c. 4.

For the words of resignation have always been, pure, sponte, absolute, et simpliciter; to exclude all indirect bargains, not only for money, but for other considerations. And therefore, in Gayton’s case, E. 24 Eliz., where the resignation was to the use of two persons therein named, and further limited with this condition, that if one of the two was not admitted to the benefice resigned within six months, the resignation should be void and of none effect; such resignation, by reason of the condition, was declared to be absolutely void.—God. 277. Gibs. 821. 1 Still. 334.

But where the resignation is made for the sake of exchange only, there it admits of this condition, viz. if the exchange shall take full effect, and not otherwise; as appears by the form of resignation, which is in the register.—Gibson, 821.

By a constitution of Othobon: Whereas sometimes a man resigneth his benefices that he may obtain a vacant see; and bargaineth with the collator, that if he be not elected to the bishopric, he shall have his benefices again; we do decree, that they shall not be restored to him, but shall be conferred upon others, as lawfully void. And if they be restored to him, the same shall be of no effect; and he who shall so restore him, after they have been resigned into his hands, or shall institute the resigner into them again, if he is a bishop, he shall be supended from the use of his dalmatic and pontificals; and if he is an inferior prelate, he shall be suspended from his office until he shall think fit to revoke the same.—Athon, 134.

5. No resignation can be valid till accepted by the proper ordinary; that is, no person appointed to a cure of souls can quit that cure, or discharge himself of it, but upon good motives, to be approved by the superior who committed it to him; for it may be he would quit it for money, or to live idly, or the like. And this is the law temporal, as well as spiritual; as appears by that plain resolution which hath been given, that all presentations made to benefices resigned, before such acceptance, are void. And there is no pretence to say, that the ordinary is obliged to accept; since the law hath appointed no known remedy if he will not accept, any more than if he will not ordain.—Gibs. 822. 1 Still. 334.

Lyndwood makes a distinction in this case, between a cure of souls and a sinecure. The resignation of a sinecure, he thinks, is good immediately, without the superior’s consent; because none but he that resigneth hath interest in that case. But where there is a cure of souls it is otherwise; because not he only hath interest but others also unto whom he is bound to preach the word of GOD; wherefore in this case it is necessary, that there be the ratification of the bishop, or of such other person as hath power by right or custom to admit such resignation.—Gibson, 823.

Thus in the case of the Marchioness of Rockingham and Griffith, Mar. 22, 1755, Dr. Griffith being possessed of the two rectories of Leythley and Thurnsco, in order that he might be capacitated to accept another living which became vacant, to wit, the rectory of Handsworth, executed an instrument of resignation of the rectory of Leythley aforesaid, before a notary public, which was tendered to and left with the archbishop of York, the ordinary of the place within which Leythley is situate. It was objected, that here doth not appear to have been any acceptance of the resignation by the archbishop, and that without his acceptance the said rectory of Leythley could not become void. And it was held by the lord chancellor clearly, that the ordinary’s acceptance of the resignation is absolutely necessary to make an avoidance. But whether in this case there was a proper resignation and acceptance thereof, he reserved for further consideration; and in the mean time recommended it to the archbishop, to produce the resignation in court. Afterwards, on the 17th of April, 1755, the cause came on again to be heard, and the resignation was then produced. But the counsel for the executors of the late marquis declaring that they did not intend to make any further opposition, the lord chancellor gave no opinion upon the resignation, or the effect of it; but in the course of the former argument he held, that the acceptance of a resignation by the ordinary is necessary to make it effectual, and that it is in the power of the ordinary to accept or refuse a resignation.

And in the case of Hesket and Grey, H. 28 Geo. II., where a general bond of resignation was put in suit, and the defendant pleaded that he offered to resign, but the ordinary would not accept the resignation; the court of King’s Bench were unanimously of opinion, that the ordinary is a judicial officer, and is intrusted with a judicial power to accept or refuse a resignation as he thinks proper; and judgment was given for the plaintiff.

6. After acceptance of the resignation, lapse shall not run but from the time of notice given: it is true the church is void immediately upon acceptance, and the patron may present if he please; but as to lapse, the general rule that is here laid down is the unanimous doctrine of all the books. Insomuch that if the bishop who accepted the resignation dies before notice given, the six months shall not commence till notice is given, by the guardian of the spiritualities, or by the succeeding bishop; with whom the act of resignation is presumed to remain.—Gibson, 823.

7. By the 31 Eliz. c. 6, s. 8. If any incumbent of any benefice with cure of souls shall corruptly resign the same; or corruptly take for or in respect of the resigning the same, directly or indirectly, any pension, sum of money, or other benefit whatsoever, as well the giver as the taker of any such pension, sum of money, or other benefit corruptly, shall lose double the value of the sum so given, taken, or had; half to the queen, and half to him that shall sue for the same in any of her Majesty’s courts of record.—Abridged from Burn.

On the subject of general bonds of resignation, see Simony.

The following are the forms of resignation now in use:—

No. 1.

Act of Resignation to be executed before a Notary Public and credible Witnesses.

In the name of GOD, Amen. Before you, a notary public, and credible witnesses here present, I ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, for certain just and lawful causes me thereunto especially moving, without compulsion, fraud, or deceit, do purely, simply, and absolutely resign and give up my said ——, and parish church of ——, with all their rights, members, and appurtenances, into the hands of the Right Reverend Father in GOD ——, by Divine permission lord bishop ——, or of any other whomsoever, having or that shall have power to admit this my resignation. And I totally renounce my right, title, and possession of, in, and to the same, with all their rights, members, and appurtenances heretofore had, and hitherto belonging to me; I quit them, and expressly recede from them by these presents. And that this my resignation may have its full effect, I do hereby nominate and appoint ——, jointly and severally my proctors or substitutes, to exhibit this my resignation to the said right reverend father, and in my name to pray that his lordship would graciously vouchsafe to accept thereof, and to pronounce, decree, and declare the —— of ——, aforesaid, void and to be void of my person to all intents of law that may follow thereupon: and to decree, if requisite, that intimation of the said avoidance may be issued to the patron thereof. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD 185—.

Witnesses present, ——

No. 2.

Attestation of the Notary Public.

On the —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD 185—, the Rev. ——, clerk, —— of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, appeared personally before me, the under-written notary public, and resigned, gave up, and surrendered his said ——, and appointed —— his proctors, jointly and severally to exhibit his resignation, hereunto annexed, to the Right Reverend Father in GOD ——, lord bishop of ——, and did and performed all other things as in his said resignation, hereunto annexed, is particularly specified and set forth, in the presence of witnesses attesting the same.

Which I attest, —— Notary Public.

No. 3.

Acceptation by the Ordinary of the Resignation.

We accept the resignation of the ——, in the county of ——, and our diocese of ——, as it is exhibited to us by ——, one of the proctors therein named, and we do declare the said —— void, and to be void of the person of the within named ——, the party resigning, to all intents of law that may follow thereupon, and do decree that an intimation of such avoidance, if requisite, be issued to the patron thereof.

Dated this —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD 185—.

No. 4.

Copy of Letter to be sent to the Patron of the Benefice resigned, if it is not in the Patronage of the Bishop himself.

185—.

I am desired by the Lord Bishop of —— to inform you, that his lordship accepted the Rev. —— resignation of the —— of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, on the —— of ——, and declared the same void.

Please to acknowledge the receipt of this notice.

I have the honour to be,

Your most obedient servant,

—— Secretary.

RESPOND. Before the Reformation a short anthem was so called, which was sung after reading three or four verses of a chapter; after which the chapter proceeded.

RESPOND. A half pillar attached to a wall, to support one side of an arch, of which the other side rests on a pillar. It has its name from responding or answering to a pillar.

RESPONSE. In the Church service, an answer made by the people speaking alternately with the minister. The use of responses is not to be viewed as a mere incidental peculiarity of liturgical services, but rather as a fundamental characteristic of Divine worship. Responses were not made for liturgies, but liturgies for responses. Many of the psalms are constructed on the responsive model, because this was a prior trait of the worship of the sanctuary; and it is an error to suppose that responses were introduced because these psalms happened to be in alternate verses. GOD’S worship is an act in which both minister and people are concerned. This worship the Church requires to be both mental and vocal, and has ordered her ritual accordingly,—not degrading the priest to a proxy, nor the congregation to an audience; but providing for supplications and thanksgivings, which, like herself, shall be strong because united. It should be deemed a high privilege by the churchman, that he is permitted to lift up his voice in prayer, as well as in praise, “in the congregation of the saints;” that he may openly profess his confidence in the FATHER of all, and his trust in the “LAMB OF GOD who taketh away the sin of the world;” that he may join aloud in the “solemn litany,” and cry for grace whereby he may keep GOD’S holy law for the time to come. In ages past the privilege was prized. Men were not ashamed, in primitive days, to confess CHRIST before the world, and, as it were, to rend the heavens with their fervent appeals. Neither was it by an ecclesiastical fiction, but in solemn reality, that they sung, “Therefore with angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven, WE LAUD AND MAGNIFY THY GLORIOUS NAME.” May the time come when such devotion shall again adorn the “spacious courts” of Zion; when the vague murmur of confession, and the languid tones of penitence, the silent creed, and the smothered prayer, shall give place to the earnest and nervous expression of spiritual concern, and the animating testimony of devout gratitude!

It was a very ancient practice of the Jews to recite their public hymns and prayers by course, and many of the Fathers assure us that the primitive Christians imitated them therein; so that there is no old liturgy which does not contain such short and devout sentences as these, wherein the people answer the priest, and which are therefore called “responses.” This primitive usage, which is now excluded not only from Popish assemblies by their praying in an unknown tongue, but also from those of our Protestant Dissenters by the device of a long extempore prayer, is still maintained in the Church of England; which allows the people their ancient right of bearing part in the service for these good reasons: First, hereby the consent of the congregation to what we pray for is declared; and it is this unity of mind and voice, and this agreement in prayer, which hath the promise of prevailing. (Rom. xv. 6; Matt. xviii. 19.) Secondly, this grateful variety and different manner of address serves to quicken the people’s devotion. Thirdly, it engages their attention, which is apt to wander, especially in sacred things; and, since they have a duty to perform, causes them to be expectant and ready to perform it. Let all those, then, who attend the public service, gratefully embrace the privilege which the Church allows them, and make their responses gravely and with an audible voice.—Dean Comber.

But it must be remembered, both here and elsewhere, when our prayers to GOD are divided into such small portions as we call “versicles,” that the people are to join mentally in that part which the minister utters, as well as in that which they are directed to pronounce themselves. And so the minister, in like manner, must join in what the people utter, as well as in his own part. For otherwise they do not join in prayer. Besides, if this be not done, we shall frequently offer to GOD that which has but an imperfect sense. For instance, in this place, these words, “and our mouth shall show forth thy praise,” do so manifestly depend upon what the minister spake just before, that the sense of the one is not perfect without the other. It is true the Church requires, that the minister shall say the one, and the people the other portion; that is, the one portion shall be vocally uttered by the minister, and the other portion shall be vocally uttered by the people, alternately and by way of responses; but yet both the minister and the people ought mentally to offer, and to speak to GOD, what is vocally offered and spoken by the other party respectively, for the reasons already given. And, that both the minister and the congregation may be the better able to do this, they should respectively take care, that they do not confound and disturb each other by beginning their several portions too soon. The minister’s first versicle should be finished, before the people utter a word of the second; and the people should have time enough to finish the second, before the minister begins the third, &c.: so that both the minister and people may have time enough deliberately to offer every portion, and make, all of them together, one continued act of devotion. The same rule must be observed in all those psalms and hymns which are used alternately.—Dr. Bennet. (See Versicle.)

The Responses, or Responsals, as some writers call them, may be said to be of four kinds: First, those which consist of Amen after the prayers: Secondly, those which follow the versicles or suffrages: Thirdly, those which are repetitions of what the minister has said, as in the confession, some parts of the Litany, &c.: and Fourthly, the short prayers or anthems, interposed between each commandment in the Communion Service.

RESPONSORIES, or RESPONDS. These, in the unreformed ritual, are short verses from Scripture, repeated as verse and response, after the lessons at matins. Hence perhaps it is that the hymns after our lessons have sometimes incorrectly been called responses; a term, however, which in this sense seems nearly obsolete. It is to these responsories that allusion is made in the Preface “concerning the Service of the Church,” in our Prayer Book. “For this cause he cut off Anthems, Responds, Invitations, and such like things as did break the continual course of the reading of the Scriptures.” Here is not meant responses per se; for these our reformers most carefully retained; not anthems per se, as these are prescribed in their proper places; but the ancient custom was corrected, which after every three or four verses of a lesson interposed a respond, &c., so as to interrupt the service; the sequel being taken up when the respond was finished.—Jebb.

RESTORATION. The name generally given to the happy return of the Church of England to the divinely appointed ecclesiastical polity, and to their allegiance to the lawful prince, Charles II., which took place in 1660; a happy event, for which Christian people cannot be too thankful, and of which, and all the dreadful evils from which it delivered them, they cannot be too often reminded. It has been accordingly appointed by authority, that the 29th of May, in every year, shall be kept with prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty GOD for these unspeakable mercies.

RESURRECTION. There are many passages in the Old Testament, which either obscurely hint at the resurrection, or immediately refer to it. (Job xix. 23–27; Dan. xii. 2; Isa. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19; Hosea vi. 2; xiii. 14; Ezek. xxxvii. 1–14.) It follows, indeed, from an acceptance of the promise of a redeemer. A redeemer was promised as a blessing to Adam and the patriarchs; but when Adam and the first patriarchs died, how was the coming of the REDEEMER to be a blessing to them? The answer is given by Job: “I know that my REDEEMER liveth, and that at the latter day he shall stand upon the earth; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold;” i. e. by being raised from the dead. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is one of the great articles of the Christian faith. We believe that JESUS died and rose again; we also believe, for so we are taught in the New Testament, that “them which sleep in JESUS will GOD bring with him,” that “CHRIST by his rising became the first-fruits of them that slept,” that “the dead shall be raised incorruptible,” that “the grave and the sea shall give up their dead,” that at this resurrection “the dead in CHRIST shall rise first,” that the LORD JESUS CHRIST will change “our vile body, and fashion it like unto his glorious body, according to the working of that mighty power whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.” (1 Thess. iv. 14–16; 1 Cor. xv. 20–52; Rev. xx. 13; Phil. iii. 21.)

As CHRIST, the “first-fruits of them that sleep,” (1 Cor. xv. 20,) arose from the dead, so shall there be also a general RESURRECTION OF THE BODY; for he “that raised up CHRIST from the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies.” (Rom. viii. 11.) A seeming difficulty, however, attends the latter case, which does not the former. The body of CHRIST did not “see corruption;” but we know that in our case, “after the skin worms shall destroy the body itself,” and that “yet in our flesh shall we see GOD.” (Job xix. 26.) We must, therefore, believe that this resurrection, however apparently difficult, is not impossible, for with him by whom we are to be raised “all things are possible.” We know that by him “the very hairs of the head are all numbered;” and he “who measures the waters in the hollow of his hand,” and “comprehends the dust of the earth,” (Isa. xl. 12,) whose “eyes” could “see our substance,” “made in secret,” and “yet being imperfect” (Ps. cxxxix. 15, 16,) can be at no loss to distinguish the different particles of every different body, whether it be crumbled into dust, or dissipated into air, or sublimated by fire. He, too, the artificer of the body so “fearfully and wonderfully made,” (Ps. cxxxix. 14,) can be at no loss to reunite the innumerable and widely scattered atoms; for these shall not perish; and with equal ease reform the man, as he originally made him.

The union of the immortal soul to the companion made for it, (then become more pure and glorified,) after they have existed together in this transitory life, is also highly probable; nor is it less so, that this should be the case as man is an accountable agent, intended to enjoy eternal happiness, or suffer eternal misery—decreed to “receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (2 Cor. v. 10.) It is also typified by many things around us: the constant succession of death and revivification—the night is followed by a new day—the winter, the death of the year, is followed by the spring, and the renewal of vegetation; the “grain” sown is not requickened except it first “die,” and is buried in the ground and brought to corruption.

By this is Reason prepared to assent to Revelation; and therefore, as it has been prophesied that, notwithstanding this destruction of the body, yet in our “flesh” shall we “see GOD,” and our “eyes shall behold him” (Job xix. 26); that the “dead men shall live,” and with the “dead body, arise;” for “the earth shall cast out the dead,” (Isa. xxvi. 19,) and that they that “sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” (Dan. xii. 2,) so shall it be accomplished: “there shall be a resurrection of the dead” (Acts xxiv. 15); “the hour is coming when the dead—all that are in the grave—shall hear the voice of the SON of GOD,” and “shall come forth;” the “sea” and “death and hell” (or the grave) “shall deliver up the dead which are in them” (Rev. xx. 13).

This our LORD, who calls himself “the Resurrection and the Life,” (John xi. 25,) proved to the Sadducees from the Old Testament; since he who was then the GOD of their fathers “is not the GOD of the dead, but of the living.” (Matt. xxii. 32.) St. Paul, too, confirms the doctrine by most powerful reasoning; declaring, that if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is “CHRIST not risen;” and then is their “faith” vain; and he shows, in answer to cavillers, that, as CHRIST is risen, “the first-fruits,”—so shall “all be made alive,” exemplifying the probability and the manner of this by a familiar illustration. (1 Cor. XV. 12–23, 35–49.)

It shall be, too, a resurrection of the body, every one his own body as it “hath pleased” GOD to give him: although the “natural body,” “sown in corruption,—in dishonour,—and in weakness,” shall be “raised a spiritual body,—in incorruption, in glory, and in power.” The “earthly house” shall have “a building of GOD” (2 Cor. v. 1); the “corruptible” shall “put on incorruption;” and the “mortal, immortality.” Those that do “not sleep” shall “be changed,”—“caught up in the clouds to meet the LORD.” (1 Thess. iv. 17.)

We believe in this article, as the great truth it contains is for the glory of GOD’S eternal government, “the hand of the LORD shall be known towards his servants, and his indignation towards his enemies” (Isa. lxvi. 14); as it proves the value of the “gospel,” which has “brought life and immortality to light” (2 Tim. i. 10); as it consoles us under “afflictions,” which are “but for a moment:” since we know that our “REDEEMER liveth;” and that we “sorrow not,” therefore, “as others which have no hope” (1 Thess. iv. 13, with 14–18); and excites us “to have always a conscience void of offence toward GOD and toward men” (Acts xxiv. 16, with 15); since “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living GOD!” (Heb. x. 31)—of “him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell!” (Matt. x. 28.) Therefore should we be “always abounding in the work of the LORD; forasmuch as we know that our labour in the LORD is not in vain.” (1 Cor. xv. 58.)

REVELATION. (1.) The Divine communication of the sacred truths of religion. (See Bible, Scripture.)

(2.) The Apocalypse, or prophecy of St. John, revealing future things. This is the last book of Holy Scripture, and it contains the revelations made to St. John at Patmos. It is quoted as an inspired book by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other fathers of the first three centuries. Its authenticity and genuineness were never disputed until a prejudice was excited against it by the follies of certain Millenarians, who thought to support their conclusions by its authority. But the Church never doubted of its being a portion of Scripture, or of its Divine origin. Indeed, few books of the New Testament have more complete evidence of canonical authority than the Book of Revelation. It treats, 1. “Of the things which were then,” (i. 19,) i. e. of the state of the Church in the time of St. John; and, 2. “Of things which should be hereafter,” or of the history of the Church, its propagation, corruption, reformation, and triumph.

REVEREND. Venerable, deserving awe and respect. It is the title given to ecclesiastics of the second and third orders, the archbishops, and the bishop of Meath, being styled most reverend, and the bishops right reverend. Deans are very reverend. In foreign churches, where females are ordained to offices in the Church, abbesses and prioresses are called reverend mothers. It was so in our own Church before the Reformation, but, since that time, the custom of consecrating females to the service of GOD, except so far as all lay persons are so consecrated at holy baptism and at confirmation, has ceased. The more zealous Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and especially during the Great Rebellion, very strongly objected to the title of reverend, as implying too much to be given to a mere creature, and because of GOD only it may be said with propriety, “Holy and reverend is his name.” But dissenting preachers are in these days ambitious of the title, and few clergymen refuse it. The title of reverend was frequently given, so late as the 17th century, to the judges of England.

RIGHTEOUSNESS, JUSTICE, HOLINESS. (See Justification and Sanctification.)

RING, in holy matrimony. Immediately after the mutual promises or stipulations in the office of matrimony, the very ancient ceremony occurs of placing a ring on the finger of the woman. The object of this is stated in the prayer following, to be “a token and pledge” of the vow and covenant just made by the parties. Ritualists have supposed, that the ring was also a pledge or earnest of that honourable maintenance and participation in “worldly goods,” which are promised in that part of the office where the ceremony takes place. It has also been considered as a sign or seal of admittance of the wife to “the nearest friendship and highest trust,” which it was in the husband’s power to give. It is probable that there is weight in all these opinions, though the former seems to be the prominent one in the view of the Church.

Various analogies and figurative applications have sprung from the ceremony of the ring, some of which are thus stated by Dean Comber and Wheatly. The matter of which this ring is made is gold, to signify how noble and durable our affection is; the form is round, to imply that our respect shall never have an end; the place of it is on the fourth finger of the left hand, where the ancients thought was a vein which came directly from the heart, and where it may be always in view; and, being a finger least used, where it may be least subject to be worn out. But the main end is to be a visible and lasting token and remembrance of this covenant, which must never be forgotten; and if in ordinary bargains we have some lasting thing delivered as an earnest or pledge and memorial, much more is it needful here; and to scruple a thing so prudent and well designed, so anciently and universally used, does not deserve our serious consideration. Indeed, although the use of the ring in marriage used to be regarded as a remnant of Popery by ultra-Protestants, it seems now to be universally tolerated.

Besides the pledge of our truth, there is a visible pledge also, namely, the ring, which being anciently the seal by which all orders were signed, and all choice things secured, the delivery of this was a sign that the party to whom it was given was admitted into the nearest friendship and the highest trust, so as to be invested with our authority, and allowed to manage our treasure and other concerns, (Gen. xli. 42,) and hence it came to be a token of love (Luke xv. 22); and was used in matrimony, not only among the Jews and Gentiles, but the Christians also; who, in Clemens Alexandrinus’s time, gave their spouse a ring, to declare her worthy of the government of the family; and thus it hath been used ever since.—Dean Comber.

The ring is, by positive institution, “a token and pledge of the covenant made” by the parties contracting marriage; and, as it is a permanent monument of the vows and promises then reciprocally made, so it ought to be a perpetual monitor, that these vows be religiously observed, and these promises faithfully performed.—Shepherd.

RING, in investitures. A ring was anciently given to bishops on their consecration, with these words, “Accipe annulum, discretionis et honoris, fidei signum; ut quæ signanda, signes; et quæ aperienda sunt, aperias; quæ liganda sunt, liges; quæ solvenda sunt, solvas.” It was worn on different fingers, most frequently on the middle finger of the right hand; and was a sign of the bridegroom’s espousal of the Church in her representative, the bishop.

Investiture with the ring and staff, which signified a spiritual character and office, was always claimed by the Church, though sometimes unjustly usurped by temporal princes.

RITES. (Lat. ritus.) Religious observances prescribed by competent authority.

It is very visible, that in the Gospels and Epistles there are but few rules laid down as to ritual matters. In the Epistles there are some general rules given, that must apply in a great many cases; such as, “Let all things be done to edification, to order, and to peace” (Rom. xiv. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 40): and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus many rules are given in such general words, as, “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” that, in order to the guiding of particular cases by them, many distinctions and specialities were to be interposed, to making them practicable and useful. In matters that are merely ritual, the state of mankind in different climates and ages is apt to vary; and the same things, that in one scene of human nature may look grave, and seem fit for any society, may in another age look light, and dissipate men’s thoughts. It is also evident, that there is not a system of rules given in the New Testament about all these; and yet a due method in them is necessary, to maintain the order and decency that become Divine things. This seems to be a part of the gospel “liberty,” that it is not “a law of ordinances” (Gal. ii. 4; iv. 9; v. 1); these things being left to be varied according to the diversities of mankind. (See Article 34.)

The Jewish religion was delivered to one nation, and the main parts of it were to be performed in one place: they were also to be limited in rituals, lest they might have taken some practices from their neighbours round about them, and so by the use of their rites have rendered idolatrous practices more familiar and acceptable to them. And yet they had many rites among them in our SAVIOUR’S time, which are not mentioned in any part of the Old Testament: such was the whole constitution of their synagogues, with all the service and officers that belonged to them; they had a baptism among them, besides several rites added to the paschal service. Our SAVIOUR reproved them for none of these: he went to their synagogues: and, though he reproved them for overvaluing their rites, for preferring them to the laws of GOD, and making these void by their traditions, yet he does not condemn them for the use of them. And, while of the greater precepts he says, “these things ye ought to have done,” he adds, concerning their rites and lesser matters, “and not to have left the other undone.” (Matt. xxiii. 23.)

If then such a liberty was allowed in so limited a religion, it seems highly suitable to the sublimer state of the Christian liberty, that there should be room left for such appointments and alterations as the different state of times and places should require. In such rules we ought to acquiesce. Nor can we assign any other bounds to our submission in this case, than those which the gospel has limited. “We must obey GOD rather than man” (Acts v. 29); and we must in the first place “render to GOD the things that are GOD’S,” and then “give to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.” (Matt. xxii. 21.) So that if either Church or State have power to make rules and laws in such matters, they must have this extent given them—that, till they break in upon the laws of GOD and the gospel, we must be bound to obey them. A mean cannot be put here; either they have no power at all, or they have a power that must go to everything that is not forbid by any law of GOD. This is the only measure that can be given in this matter.—Bp. Burnet. (See Ceremonies.)

RITUAL. A book or manual in which is given the order and forms to be observed in the celebration of Divine service, the administration of the sacraments, and, in general, all matters connected with external order, in the performance of sacred offices.

Palmer says, the English ritual resembles that of the Eastern Church in the circumstance of combining all the offices of the Church in one volume. The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greeks, now comprises the offices for morning and evening prayer, the liturgy or eucharist, baptism, litany, orders, &c. The Western Churches have more commonly divided these offices into at least four parts, entitled, the breviary, the missal or liturgical book, the ritual, and the pontifical. The ritual and pontifical correspond to that part of the English ritual which begins with the Office of Baptism. The ritual, (termed in the English churches of Salisbury and York, and elsewhere, manual,) comprised all those occasional offices of the Church which a presbyter could administer. The pontifical contained those only which a bishop could perform.

The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greek Church, illustrated with notes by Goar, is well known and easily accessible, and furnishes abundant information with regard to all the rites of the Catholic Church in the East. The baptismal and some other occasional offices of the Jacobites or Monophysites of Alexandria, Antioch, and Armenia, and of the Nestorians, have been published by Assemani in his “Codex Liturgicus.” Many of the Oriental offices for ordination, as well as all the Western, are to be found in the learned treatise of Morinus, “De Ordinationibus.” The most valuable collection of records relative to the occasional offices of the Western Churches has been published by Martene, in his work, “De antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus.” This author, with indefatigable industry, transcribed and edited a multitude of ancient manuscripts, and collected whatever had previously been published. So that there is scarcely any branch of ritual knowledge which he has not greatly elucidated.

ROCHET. A linen garment worn by bishops under the chimere. It was their ordinary garment in public during the middle ages. The word rochet, however, is not of any great antiquity, and perhaps cannot be traced further back than the thirteenth century. The chief difference between this garment and the surplice was, that it was of finer material, and that its sleeves were narrower than those of the latter; for we do not perceive in any of the ancient pictures of English bishops those very wide and full lawn sleeves which are now used, which sleeves are now improperly attached to the chimere or black satin robe.

Palmer says, the rochette is spoken of in the old “Ordo Romanus,” under the title of linea; and has, no doubt, been very anciently used by bishops in the Western Church. During the middle ages it was their ordinary garment in public.

Dr. Hody says, that in the reign of Henry VIII., our bishops wore a scarlet garment under the rochette; and that, in the time of Edward VI., they wore a scarlet chimere, like the doctors’ dress at Oxford, over the rochette; which, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was changed for the black satin chimere used at present.—History of Convocations, p. 141. (See Chimere.)

The chimere seems to resemble the garment used by bishops during the middle ages, and called mantelletum; which was a sort of cope, with apertures for the arms to pass through. (See Du Cange’s Glossary.)

In some foreign cathedrals, the canons wore rochets, as well as other episcopal ornaments.

ROGATION DAYS. (So called from rogare, “to beseech.”) They are three days immediately before the festival of Ascension. These litanic or Rogation days were first instituted by Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, in the fifth century. Mamertus was not the originator of litanical supplications, but was the first institutor of the Rogation fast, and the first who applied the use of litanies on these days, accompanied with public processions, which continued till the æra of the Reformation. In the Church of England it has been thought fit to continue the observance of these days as private fasts. There is no office, or order of prayer, or even single collect, appointed for the Rogation days in the Prayer Book; but among the homilies there is one designed for the improvement of these days. (See Perambulation.) The requisitions of the Church are “abstinence” and “extraordinary acts and exercises of devotion.” Perambulations were in many parishes observed in the Rogation days. (See Perambulation.)

ROMANISM. (See Pope and Popery, Church of Rome, Council of Trent.) Romanism consists of the addition of certain anti-scriptural propositions to the articles of the ancient catholic faith.

In addition to what is said in the other articles referred to, we may state the tenets of Romanism in the words of Morgan, in his interesting work on the “Verities of the Church.”

1. The spiritual, and, by the Ultramontane party, the temporal, autocracy of the Bishop of Rome.

2. The compulsory celibacy of the priesthood.

3. Solitary priestly communion, or private mass.

4. The denial of the chalice, or the cup of the blood of our LORD, to the laity.

5. Compulsory auricular confession.

6. Mariolatry, or the adoration of the Blessed Virgin.

7. Hagiolatry, or the adoration of canonized saints.

8. Transubstantiation.

9. The invention of purgatory.

10. The doctrine of supererogatory merits.

11. Limitation of the Catholic Church of CHRIST to one episcopate.

12. The image and relic system.

13. The doctrines of papal pardons, indulgences, and dispensations.

14. The interpolation of the Apocrypha into the rule of faith.

15. Interdiction of the reading of the Scriptures, except by special permission.

(For the form of reconciling Roman Catholics to the Catholic Church of England, see Abjuration.)

ROMAN CATHOLICS. Those Christians who follow the doctrines and discipline of the Church of Rome.

The doctrine of that Church may be seen in Pope Pius’s Creed, and its discipline under various articles relating to the Christians. (See Church of Rome, Baptism, Eucharist, &c., Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, &c., &c., &c.)

We shall here unite in one point of view the several errors of the Romish Church, and its deviations from the practice of the primitive Church. These are:

1. The granting absolution before penance is performed.

2. The worship of angels, saints, relics, images, the cross, and the host in the eucharist.

3. Appeals to the bishop of Rome.

4. Admitting uncanonical books into the Scripture.

5. The absolute necessity of baptism; and the baptizing of bells.

6. The celibacy of the clergy, and their exemption from the power of the civil magistrate.

7. The exemption of children from the power of their parents.

8. Auricular confession, and confirmation made a sacrament.

9. The administering the eucharist in one kind only.

10. The abuse of excommunication, in deposing kings, and depriving magistrates of their civil rights, and burning heretics under pretence of discipline.

11. The consecration of the eucharist by muttering privately, Hoc est corpus meum, instead of public and audible prayer.

12. The use of interdicts and indulgences.

13. Offering of a lamb at Easter.

14. Original of Lent, and changing the manner of fasting.

15. Exemption of monks from the jurisdiction of the bishops.

16. Allowing of mendicants.

17. Disannulling the marriage of monks.

18. Forbidding the marriage of spiritual relations.

19. Making the marriage of cousin-germans to be incest.

20. Private and solitary mass.

21. Making the mass a sacrifice for the quick and dead.

22. Purgatory, and canonical purgation.

23. Prelatical and sacerdotal power.

24. Ordination of boys, and bishops, without a title.

25. Commutation of penance.

20. Allowing sanctuary for the worst of criminals.

27. Keeping the Scriptures and Divine service in an unknown tongue.

28. Swearing by the creatures.

29. The doctrine of transubstantiation.

30. Using unleavened bread and wafers in the eucharist.

31. Necessity of a visible head, and subjection to the pope of Rome.

The following is the return regarding Roman Catholics made in the Registrar-general’s Report of 1854.

“The Toleration Act of 1688, by which the Protestant Dissenters were relieved from many of the disabilities that previously attached to them, procured no change in the position of the Roman Catholics. They still remained subjected to the penalties inflicted by the various statutes which, since Elizabeth’s accession, had been passed for their discouragement. These were exceedingly severe. Apart from the punishments awarded for the semi-political offence of denying, or refusing to admit, the sovereign’s supremacy, the Acts of Recusancy (1 Eliz. c. 2, and 23 Eliz. c. 1) exposed them to considerable fines for non-attendance at the service of the Established Church; and by other statutes they were not permitted to establish schools in England, nor to send their children to be taught abroad—they were excluded from all civil and military offices, from seats in either house of parliament, and from the practice of the law,—they were not allowed to vote at parliamentary elections,—proselytes to Popery, and those who were the means of their conversion, were subjected to the penalties of treason,—and, by various oaths and tests, as well as by express provision, they were hindered in the exercise of their religious worship, and prevented from promulgating their doctrines. Their condition was, in fact, deteriorated in the reign of William III.—some enactments of especial rigour being sanctioned.

“Whether from the effect of these enactments, or from the natural progress of the principles of Protestantism, it is certain that at this time the number of professing Roman Catholics in England, who, in the reign of Elizabeth, were, according to Mr. Butler, a majority, or, according to Mr. Hallam, a third of the population, had considerably declined. A Report presented to William, divides the freeholders of England and Wales, as follows—

Conformists 2,477,254 Nonconformists 108,676 Papists 13,856 ————————— 2,599,786

And the number of persons of the Roman Catholic faith is said to be only 27,696. This statement, allowing for all probable deficiencies, sufficiently exhibits the great diminution which, from various causes, had occurred since the period of the Reformation.

“Not much alteration in the position of the Roman Catholics took place for nearly a century after the Revolution. As the temper of the times grew milder, many of the penal laws were not enforced; though, while the throne remained exposed to the pretensions of the Stuart family, the laws themselves continued on the Statute Book: indeed, some further measures were enacted during the agitations consequent upon the Roman Catholic Rebellion of 1715. When, however, in the person of George III., the Brunswick dynasty was firmly settled on the throne, a course of mitigating legislation was commenced, which gradually relieved the Roman Catholics from all restraints upon their worship, and from nearly all the incapacities attached to their religion. In 1778, the first remedial act was passed, repealing the provision in the 10th and 12th of William III., by which the Roman Catholics were disabled from taking lands by descent. The Gordon riots of 1780 rather aided than retarded the advance of public sentiment towards additional relief; and, in 1791, Mr. Pitt, (having obtained from the chief continental universities, unanimous opinions that the pope possessed no civil authority in England, that he cannot absolve the subjects of a sovereign from their allegiance, and that the principles of the Roman Catholic faith do not excuse or justify a breach of faith with heretics,) procured the passing of another bill, by which, upon taking a form of oath prescribed, the Roman Catholics were secured against most of the penalties pronounced by former acts. They were left, however, still subjected to the Test and Corporation Acts, by which they were excluded from all civil and military offices, were prohibited from sitting in either house of parliament, and were disabled from presenting to advowsons. The removal of the chief of these remaining disabilities was zealously urged upon the parliament for many years successively. In 1813 an important measure, framed with this intention, was defeated in the Commons by a majority of only four: while, in 1821, a bill to the same effect passed through the lower House, but was rejected by the Peers. At length, in 1828, the Test and Corporation Acts were abrogated, and in 1829 the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act bestowed on Roman Catholics substantially the same amount of toleration which was granted to the Protestant Dissenters.

“The number of chapels from which returns have been received at the Census Office is 570; with sittings (after an allowance for 48 chapels making no return upon this point) for 186,111. The number of attendants on the Census Sunday (making an estimated addition for 27 chapels the returns from which were silent on this point) was: Morning, 252,783; Afternoon, 53,967; Evening, 76,880. It will be observed, that in the morning the number of attendants was more than the number of sittings: this is explained by the fact, that in many Roman Catholic chapels there is more than one morning service, attended by different individuals.”

ROOD LOFT. A gallery running along the top of the rood screen, which in parish churches usually crossed the chancel arch, on which the rood (i. e. the figure of our Blessed LORD on the cross) was placed, and on either side the Blessed Virgin and St. John. In large cross churches, the rood loft with its screen was usually of stone, and sometimes contained a chapel and altar within it. These more substantial rood lofts have been almost universally converted into organ lofts.

ROOD SCREEN. A screen separating the chancel from the nave, on which was formerly the rood loft.

ROOF. The following are the principal terms which occur in the description of a timber roof.

Beam.—A horizontal piece connecting the principals of each truss, and stiffening and tying them together. According to its position, it is either a tie-beam, extending from wall to wall; a collar-beam, connecting the principals near the ridge; or a hammer-beam, extending horizontally from the wall, (and sometimes again from the principal rafters,) but cut off before it reaches the opposite side. It is only by its combination with other timbers, as braces, principal, and collar, that the hammer-beam serves the purpose of a beam in mechanical construction.

King-post. The middle post of each truss, resting upon the beam, and rising to the ridge.

Rafters. Timbers rising from the wall, and inclined towards each other till they meet at the ridge. The principal rafters are let into the beam at their lower end, and into the king-post at their upper, and together with beam, post, and braces, where they occur, form the truss, which is the whole complication of carpentry, bearing the vertical weight of the roof, and delivering it upon the wall.

Purlin. A longitudinal piece extending from truss to truss, resting on the principal, and bearing the common rafters.

Braces. Curved pieces tenoned into the main timbers in various places and directions, and serving to stiffen and tie them together.

Wall-plate. A longitudinal piece laid on the top of the wall to receive the beams.

Wall-piece. The upright piece connecting the braces beneath a hammer-beam with the wall. This subject should be studied in the very valuable work of Mr. Brandon, “On the Open Timber Roofs of the Middle Ages.”

ROSARY, among the Roman Catholics, is a pretended instrument or help to piety, being a chaplet, consisting of five, or fifteen, decads or tens of beads, to direct the reciting so many Ave Marias in honour of the Blessed Virgin.

Before a person repeats his rosary, he must cross himself with it: then he must repeat the Apostles’ Creed, and say a Pater and three Aves, on account of the three relations which the Virgin bears to the three persons in the TRINITY. After these preliminaries to devotion, he passes on to his decads, and must observe to let himself into the mysteries of each ten by a prayer, which he will find in the books treating of the devotion of the rosary.

Some attribute the institution of the rosary to Dominic: but it was in use in the year 1100; and, therefore, Dominic could only make it more celebrated. Others ascribe it to Paulus Libycus, others to St. Benedict, others to Venerable Bede, and others to Peter the Hermit.

ROSECRUCIANS. A sect of philosophers in the early part of the seventeenth century, who combined much religious error and mysticism with their philosophical notions of transmutations, and of the chemical constitution of things. Their name is derived from ros, “dew,” which they held to be the most powerful solvent of gold; and crux, the “cross,” which in the chemical style signifies light, because the figure of the cross exhibits at the same time the three letters in the word lux. Now light, according to this sect, and in their absurd jargon, is the menstruum of the red dragon, i. e. the substance out of which gold is produced. The Rosecrucians then were alchemists, who sought for the philosopher’s stone by the intervention of dew and of light. These absurdities were associated with others in their system which it would be in vain to collect; but the ruling principle of their society seems to have been the imposing mystery in which they wrapped up everything which they knew, or pretended to know, as if the secrets of nature were made known to them, for the very purpose of being kept secret from all others. Of their leaders and religious fancies Mosheim gives the following summary:

At the head of the fanatics were Robert Fludd, a native of England, and a man of surprising genius; Jacob Behmen, a shoemaker, who lived at Goslitz; and Michael Mayer.

These leaders of the sect were followed by John Baptist Helmont, and his son Francis Christian Knorrius de Rosenroth, Kuhlman, Nollius, Sperber, and many others of various fame. An uniformity of opinion, and a spirit of concord, seemed scarcely possible in such a society as this; for as a great part of its doctrine is derived from certain internal feelings and flights of imagination, which can neither be comprehended nor defined, and is supported by testimonies of the external senses, whose reports are illusory and changeable, so it is remarkable that, among the more eminent writers of this sect, there are scarcely any two who adopt the same tenets and sentiments. There are, nevertheless, some common principles that are generally embraced, and which serve as a centre of union to the society. They maintain, that the dissolution of bodies, by the power of fire, is the only way through which men can arrive at true wisdom, and come to discern the first principle of things. They all acknowledge a certain analogy and harmony between the powers of nature and the doctrines of religion, and believe that the Deity governs the kingdom of grace by the same laws with which he rules the kingdom of nature; and hence it is that they employ chemical denominations to express the truths of religion. They all hold that there is a sort of divine energy, or soul, diffused through the frame of the universe, which some call Archæus, others Universal Spirit, and which others mention under different appellations. They all talk in the most obscure and superstitious manner of what they call the signatures of things, of the power of the stars over all corporeal beings, and their particular influence over the human race, of the efficacy of magic, and the various species and classes of demons. In fine, they all agree in throwing out the most crude, incomprehensible notions and ideas, in the most obscure, quaint, and unusual expressions.

RUBRICS. Rules and orders directing how, when, and where all things in Divine service are to be performed, which were formerly printed in a red character, (as now generally in an Italic,) and therefore called Rubrics, from the Latin rubrica (pro ruberica, à rubra, subaud. terra, red earth; thence any red colour). All the clergy of England solemnly pledge themselves to observe the rubrics.

The rubric, to which we here bind ourselves by express consent and promise, is upon a different footing from all other ecclesiastical laws. For without considering it as statute, and, as such, only upon the level with several other subsequent acts of parliament relating to our occasional ministrations, we are under this peculiar circumstance of obligation to observe it, that we have, by our subscriptions at both ordinations, by one of our vows at the altar for the order of priesthood, by our subscriptions and declarations of conformity before our ordinary, and repetition of them in the church before our congregations, and likewise by our declarations of assent and consent, as prescribed by the Act of Uniformity; I say, we have in all these several ways tied ourselves down to a regular, constant, conscientious performance of all and everything prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer, according to the usage of the Church of England. And seeing it hath been the wisdom of our Church to lay us under these engagements, in order to preserve exact uniformity in the public worship and all the liturgic offices; nay, since it hath been judged proper to carry us through a train of these stipulations before we can get possession of any benefice; and to make us renew them again and again, as often as we change our preferment, or obtain any new promotion; and seeing that we have entered (as we have professed) ex animo into this covenant with the Church, and have deliberately renewed it as often as there hath been occasion; how frivolous is it for any of us to say, that the connivance, or the presumed consent, of our ordinary, or the private conveniency of ourselves or families, or the obliging of any of our parishioners, or the apparent inexpediency of adhering to the letter in some few cases, will dissolve this our obligation to conformity? Surely we must know, that these and the like allegations are quite out of the case; that, however our Church governors may dispense with our breaches of the rubric, however our people may acquiesce in them or approve of them, yet the question is, how far we are at liberty to dispense with ourselves on account of the forementioned engagements, to which GOD and the Church are made witnesses in as solemn a manner as they are to our personal stipulations at confirmation or matrimony; or whether we have not in this case precluded ourselves from all benefit of such exemption or dispensation, as might perhaps be reasonably alleged in several other merely statutable or canonical matters?

This indeed we must always take along with us, that our obligations to observe the rubric, how indispensable soever, are subject to this proviso; namely, that the rule prescribed be a thing practicable; which perhaps cannot be said of all rubrics in all churches, or in all places of the kingdom; nay, that it be a thing which falls within the minister’s power, so that he be not deprived of his liberty in acting, or restrained in it by the previous acts of other people, whereby that which would be practicable in itself is rendered not practicable by him. I will not positively say, that no other proviso is to be allowed of or admitted; because this cannot be determined absolutely, or otherwise than by a particular consideration of each rule or injunction under several different circumstances. But we may affirm in general, that we are under higher obligations to observe the rubric than any other ecclesiastical law whatsoever; that excepting a very few cases, or under some necessary limitations and reservations, we are bound to adhere to it literally, punctually, and perpetually; and that, whosoever among the clergy either adds to it, or diminishes from it, or useth any other rule instead of it, as he is in the eye of the law so far a nonconformist, so it behoves him to consider with himself, whether, in point of conscience, he be not a breaker of his word and trust, and an eluder of his engagements to the Church.—Archdeacon Sharpe.

RURAL DEANS. The office of rural dean is an ancient office of the Church, which is mentioned as early as the time of Edward the Confessor, in one of whose laws mention is made of the dean of the bishop.

The proper authority and jurisdiction of rural deans, perhaps, may be best understood from the oath of office which in some dioceses was anciently administered to them; which was this: “I, A. B., do swear, diligently and faithfully to execute the office of dean rural within the deanery of D. First, I will diligently and faithfully execute, or cause to be executed, all such processes as shall be directed unto me from my Lord Bishop of C., or his officers or ministers by his authority. Item, I will give diligent attendance, by myself or my deputy, at every consistory court, to be holden by the said reverend father in GOD, or his chancellor, as well to return such processes as shall be by me or my deputy executed; as also to receive others, then unto me to be directed. Item, I will from time to time, during my said office, diligently inquire, and true information give unto the said reverend father in GOD, or his chancellor, of all the names of all such persons within the said deanery of D. as shall be openly and publicly noted and defamed, or vehemently suspected of any such crime or offence, as is to be punished or reformed by the authority of the said court. Item, I will diligently inquire, and true information give, of all such persons and their names, as do administer any dead man’s goods, before they have proved the will of the testator, or taken letters of administration of the deceased intestates. Item, I will be obedient to the right reverend father in GOD J., bishop of C., and his chancellor, in all honest and lawful commands; neither will I attempt, do, or procure to be done or attempted, anything that shall be prejudicial to his jurisdiction, but will preserve and maintain the same to the uttermost of my power.”—God. Append.

From whence it appears, that besides their duty concerning the execution of the bishop’s processes, their office was to inspect the lives and manners of the clergy and people within their district, and to report the same to the bishop; to which end, that they might have knowledge of the state and condition of their respective deaneries, they had a power to convene rural chapters.—Gibson.

Which chapters were made up of all the instituted clergy, or their curates as proxies of them, and the dean as president or prolocutor. These were convened either upon more frequent and ordinary occasions, or at more solemn seasons for the greater and more weighty affairs. Those of the former sort were held at first every three weeks, in imitation of the courts baron, which run generally in this form, from three weeks to three weeks; but afterwards they were most commonly held once a month, at the beginning of the month, and were for this reason called kalendæ, or monthly meetings. But their most solemn and principal chapters were assembled once a quarter, in which there was to be a more full house, and matters of greater import were to be here alone transacted. All rectors and vicars, or their capellanes, were bound to attend these chapters, and to bring information of all irregularities committed in their respective parishes. If the deans were by sickness or urgent business detained from there appearing and presiding in such convocations, they had power to constitute their subdeans or vicegerents. The place of holding these chapters was at first in any one church within the district where the minister of the place was to procure for, that is, to entertain, the dean and his immediate officers. But because, in parishes that were small and unfrequented, there was no fit accommodation to be had for so great a concourse of people, therefore, in a council at London, under Archbishop Stratford, in the year 1342, it was ordained that such chapters should not be held in any obscure village, but in the larger or more eminent parishes.—Kennedy.

And one special reason why they seemed to have been formed in this realm after the manner of the courts baron is, because we find nothing of rural chapters in the ancient canon law.—Gibson.

In pursuance of which institution of holding rural chapters, and of the office of rural deans in inspecting the manners of clergy and people, and executing the bishop’s processes for the reformation thereof, we find a constitution of Archbishop Peccham, by which it is required, that the priests, on every Sunday immediately following the holding of the rural chapter, shall expound to the people the sentence of excommunication.

And in these chapters continually presided the rural deans, until that Otho, the pope’s legate, required the archdeacons to be frequently present at them; who being superior to the rural deans, did in effect take the presidency out of their hands: insomuch that, in Edward the First’s reign, John of Athon gives this account of it: “Rural chapters,” says he, “at this day are holden by the archdeacon’s officials, and sometimes by the rural deans.” From which constitution of Otho we may date the decay of rural chapters; not only as it was a discouragement to the rural dean, whose peculiar care the holding of them had been; but also, as it was natural for the archdeacon and his official to draw the business that had been usually transacted there, to their own visitation, or, as it is styled in a constitution of Archbishop Langton, to their own chapter.—Gibson.

And this office of inspecting and reporting the manners of the clergy and people rendered the rural deans necessary attendants on the episcopal synod or general visitation, which was held for the same end of inspecting, in order to reformation. In which synods (or general visitation of the whole diocese by the bishop) the rural deans were the standing representatives of the rest of the clergy, and were there to deliver information of abuses committed within their knowledge, and to propose and consult the best methods of reformation. For the ancient episcopal synods (which were commonly held once a year) were composed of the bishop as president and the deans-cathedral or archipresbyters in the name of their collegiate body of presbyters or priests, and the archdeacons or deputies of the inferior order of deacons, and the urban and rural deans in the name of the parish ministers within their division; who were to have their expenses allowed to them according to the time of their attendance, by those whom they represented, as the practice obtained for the representatives of the people in the civil synods or parliament. But this part of their duty, which related to the information of scandals and offences, in progress of time devolved upon the churchwardens; and their other office of being convened to sit as members of provincial and episcopal synods, was transferred to two proctors or representatives of the parochial clergy in every diocese to assemble in convocation, where the cathedral deans and archdeacons still keep their ancient right, whilst the rural deans have given place to an election of two only for every diocese, instead of one by-standing place for every deanery.—Kennedy.

At the Reformation, in the “Reformatio Legum,” it was proposed to invest rural deans with certain legal powers, but nothing was done in this respect. In the provincial synod of convocation, held in London, April 3, 1571, it was ordained, that “the archdeacon, when he hath finished his visitation, shall signify to the bishop what clergymen he hath found in every deanery so well endowed with learning and judgment, as to be worthy to instruct the people in sermons, and to rule and preside over others; out of these the bishop may choose such as he will have to be rural deans.”

But the office was not much used till of late years, when in most dioceses it has been revived, and decanal chapters have in many places been held with much apparent advantage.

In many foreign churches, archpresbyters, or provosts, seem to have discharged much the same function as the rural deans. The title of Dean however, as employed in this case, is very common in Europe. In most dioceses of Ireland the office has been immemorially operative.

RUTH, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.

This book is a kind of appendix to the Book of Judges, and an introduction to the Books of Samuel, and is therefore properly placed between them. It has its title from the person whose story is here principally related. The Jews make but one book of this and the Book of Judges, and probably the same person was the author of both. It was certainly written at a time when the government by judges had ceased, since the author of it begins with observing, that the fact came to pass in the days when the judges ruled: and he ends his book with a genealogy, which he carries down to David. Probably it was composed in that king’s time, before he was advanced to the throne.

The history recorded in this book, is that of Ruth, a Moabitish woman, who, coming to Bethlehem, and being married to Boaz her kinsman, bare to him Obed, who was the grandfather of David. In this story are observable the ancient rights of kindred and redemption, and the manner of buying the inheritance of the deceased; with other particulars of great note and antiquity.

It is difficult to determine under what judge the history of Ruth happened. Some place it in the government of Ehud or Shamgar; and others about the beginning of the time when Eli judged Israel.

SABAOTH. A Hebrew word, signifying hosts or armies. JEHOVAH SABAOTH is the LORD of Hosts. “Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD of Sabaoth.”

SABBATARIANS, are so called from their keeping the seventh day of the week as the sabbath; whilst Christians in general keep the first day of the week, or Sunday, in memory of our SAVIOUR’S having risen that day from the dead. On the continent they are generally, but improperly, called Israelites. It is uncertain when they first made their appearance; but we learn from Fuller that there were Sabbatarians in 1633.

They object to the reasons which are generally alleged for keeping the first day; and they insist that the change of the sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, did not take place till the beginning of the fourth century, when it was effected by the emperor Constantine, on his conversion to Christianity. A summary of their principles, as to this article of the sabbath, by which they stand distinguished, is contained in the three following propositions:—1. That GOD has required the observance of the seventh, or last, day of every week, to be observed by mankind universally for the weekly sabbath. 2. That this command of GOD is perpetually binding on man till time shall be no more. And 3. That this sacred rest of the seventh day sabbath, is not changed by Divine authority, from the seventh and last to the first day of the week; or, that the Scripture nowhere requires the observance of any other day of the week for the weekly sabbath, but the seventh day only, which is still kept by the Jews, to whom the law on this subject was given. These are much more consistent in their rejection of all the subsidiary helps of antiquity in interpreting the Scriptures, than those Protestants who observe the first day of the week with Judaical strictness.

SABBATH, REST. Sabbath day, the day of rest. The sabbath day, strictly speaking, is Saturday, the observance of which is not considered obligatory by Christians. But the term is sometimes applied to the LORD’S day, which is regarded as a feast by the Church universal. (See Lord’s Day.)

SABELLIANS, were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to others, a bishop of Libya, who was the founder of the sect.

Sabellius flourished early in the third century, and his doctrine seems to have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was soon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author by Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome, A. D. 263.

Sabellius taught that there was but one person in the GODHEAD; and, in confirmation of this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: as a man, though composed of body and soul, is but one person, so GOD, though he is FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians reduced the three persons in the TRINITY to three characters or relations, and maintained that the WORD and HOLY SPIRIT are only virtues, emanations, or functions of the Deity; that he who is in heaven is the FATHER of all things; that he descended into the Virgin, became a child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having accomplished the mystery of our redemption, he diffused himself upon the apostles in tongues of fire, and was then denominated the HOLY GHOST.

Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the indwelling scheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not precisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is chiefly founded on a false and unauthorized sense of that passage in the New Testament, where the apostle, speaking of CHRIST, says, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” Dr. Watts, towards the close of his life, introduced the Sabellian heresy, and wrote several pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the TRINITY appear to have been, that “the GODHEAD, the DEITY itself, personally distinguished as the FATHER, was united to the man CHRIST JESUS, in consequence of which union or indwelling of the GODHEAD he became properly GOD.” Mr. Palmer observes that Dr. Watts conceived this union to have subsisted before the SAVIOUR’S appearance in the flesh, and that the human soul of CHRIST existed with the FATHER from before the foundation of the world; on which ground he maintains the real descent of CHRIST from heaven to earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation, which he thought incompatible with the common opinion concerning him. Dr. Doddridge is supposed to have entertained the same sentiments.

SACRAMENT. (See Seven Sacraments.) In classical writers, observes Bishop Kaye, in his learned treatise on Tertullian, the word sacramentum means an oath or promise ratified by a sacred or religious ceremony: thus, the oath taken by the military was called sacramentum. In strict conformity with this, its original signification, it is used to express the promise made by Christians in baptism. From the oath the transition was easy to the ceremony by which it was ratified. Thus sacramentum came to signify any religious ordinance, and in general to stand for that which in Greek is expressed by the word μυστήριον (mystery), any emblematical notion of a sacred import, any external act having an internal or secret meaning. If the word is understood in this extended sense, the Romanists are clearly wrong in confining the title to only seven rites or ordinances. The first who did this was probably the celebrated Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard, in the twelfth century]. Certain it is that the number of seven sacraments was first decreed by Eugenius in the fifteenth century, that the first provincial council which confirmed the decree was one convened in the sixteenth century, and that the first council, even pretending to be general, that adopted it with an anathema was the Council of Trent.

This is, in fact, our dispute on this point with Rome. If the Romanists take the word sacrament in its enlarged sense, then they ought not to confine it, as they do, to seven rites; if they take it in its strict sense, then they ought to confine it to two, baptism and the supper of the LORD. Taking the word in its general sense, the Church of England directs the clergy to speak to the people of matrimony as a sacrament. “By the like holy promise the sacrament of matrimony knitteth man and wife in perpetual love,” &c.—Homily on Swearing, part i. The Church of England in this sense acknowledges other rites to be sacraments besides baptism and the eucharist. (See below, the extract from the Homily, Of Common Prayer and Sacraments.) This is a very important distinction: “Let it be clearly understood,” says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, “it is none of the doctrine of the Church of England that there are two sacraments only, but that of those rituals commanded in Scripture, which ecclesiastical use calls sacraments, by a word of art, two only are generally necessary to salvation.”—Taylor’s Dissuasive, p. 240. In like manner Archbishop Secker says, “As the word sacrament is not a Scripture one, and hath at different times been differently understood, our catechism doth not require it to be said absolutely that the sacraments are two only, but two only necessary to salvation; leaving persons at liberty to comprehend more things under the name if they please, provided they insist not on the necessity of them, and of dignifying them with this title.”—Secker’s Lectures, xxxv. Of Baptism. It will be seen that this is in accordance with the answer in the catechism to the question, How many sacraments has CHRIST ordained in his Church? the answer being not simply two, but “two only as generally necessary to salvation.”

We have said that the distinction is important, for it enables us to take high ground on this doctrine. It is not by depressing the other ordinances of the Church which Cranmer and Taylor call sacramentals, but by placing baptism and the eucharist in their proper place and dignity, that we best defend the English Church on this point. If, with the latitudinarians, we depress the proper sacraments and make baptism a mere ceremony, and the eucharist only a more solemn form of self-dedication or worship, our controversy becomes a childish dispute about words. Not so if we distinguish, with the Church of England, baptism and the eucharist from all other ordinances, because they are, what the others are not, necessary for salvation to all men, wherever they can be had. Other ordinances may confer grace, but baptism and the eucharist alone unite with CHRIST himself. “By baptism we receive CHRIST JESUS, and from him the saving grace which is proper to baptism; by the eucharist we receive him also imparting therein himself, and that grace which the eucharist properly bestows.” Again; baptism and the eucharist are what none of the other ordinances are, federal rites, the one for initiating, the other for renewing the covenant of grace, instituted for a reciprocal communion between GOD and man, of blessings on the one part and duty on the other; they are not merely a means to an end, but they are actually a part of our moral and Christian holiness, piety, and perfection; “as much a part of virtue,” says Dr. Waterland, “as the performance of any moral duty is, as much as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked,” &c.

From what has been said it will be seen,

1. That, in the large acceptation of the word sacrament, there are many more sacraments than seven.

2. That, in the strict definition of the word, there are only two, baptism and the eucharist.

But we may sum up the whole in the words which the Church of England uses in one of the homilies: “You shall hear how many sacraments there be, that were instituted by our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and are to be continued, and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as our SAVIOUR CHRIST willed them to be received. And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness, and joining in CHRIST, there be but two, namely, baptism and the supper of the LORD. For, although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin, yet by the express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible sign in baptism and the LORD’S supper are; and therefore absolution is no such sacrament as baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath this visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin as all other sacraments besides the two above-named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as baptism and the communion are. But in a general acceptation, the name of a sacrament may be attributed to anything; whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word, the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like, not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments, in the same signification that the two forenamed sacraments are. And therefore St. Augustine, weighing the true signification and exact meaning of the word, writing to Januarius, and also in the third book of Christian doctrine, affirmeth, that the sacraments of the Christians, as they are most excellent in signification, so are they most few in number, and in both places maketh mention expressly of two, the sacrament of baptism and the supper of the LORD. And although there are retained by order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and ceremonies about the institution of ministers in the Church, matrimony, confirmation of children, by examining them of their knowledge in the articles of the faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise for the visitation of the sick; yet no man ought to take these for sacraments in such signification and meaning as the sacraments of baptism and the LORD’S supper are.”—Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments.

A sacrament is defined in the catechism, in the strict sense, as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by CHRIST himself as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.”

1. There must be an outward and visible sign, the solemn application of some bodily and sensible thing or action to a meaning and purpose which in its own nature it hath not. In common life, we have many other signs to express our meanings, on occasions of great consequence, besides words. And no wonder then if, in religion, we have some of the same kind.

2. In a sacrament, the outward and visible sign must denote “an inward and spiritual grace given unto us;” that is, some favour freely bestowed on us from heaven, by which our inward and spiritual condition, the state of our souls, is made better. Most of the significative actions that we use in religion express only our duty to GOD. Thus, kneeling in prayer is used to show our reverence towards him to whom we pray. And signing a child with the cross, after it is baptized, declares our obligation not to be ashamed of the cross of CHRIST. But a sacrament, besides expressing on our part duty to GOD, expresses on his part some grace or favour towards us.

3. In order to entitle anything to the name of sacrament, a further requisite is, that it be “ordained by CHRIST himself.” We may indeed use, on the foot of human authority alone, actions that set forth either our sense of any duty, or our belief in GOD’S grace. For it is certainly as lawful to express a good meaning by any other proper sign as by words. But then, such marks as these, which we commonly call ceremonies, as they are taken up at pleasure, may be laid aside again at pleasure; and ought to be laid aside whenever they grow too numerous, or abuses are made of them which cannot easily be reformed; and this hath frequently been the case. But sacraments are of perpetual obligation, for they stand on the authority of CHRIST, who hath certainly appointed nothing to be for ever observed in his Church but what he saw would be for ever useful.

Nor doth every appointment of CHRIST, though it be of perpetual obligation, deserve the name of a sacrament, but those, and no other, which are, 4. Not only signs of grace, but means also, whereby we receive the same. None but our blessed LORD could appoint such means; and which of his ordinances should be such, and which not, none but himself could determine. From his word, therefore, we are to learn it; and then, as we hope to attain the end, we must use the means. But when it is said that the sacraments are means of grace, we are not to understand either that the performance of the mere outward action doth, by its own virtue, produce a spiritual effect in us, or that GOD hath annexed any such effect to that alone; but that he will accompany the action with his blessing, provided it be done as it ought, with those qualifications which he requires. And therefore, unless we fulfil the condition, we must not expect the benefit.

Further, calling the sacraments means of grace, doth not signify them to be means by which we merit grace; for nothing but the sufferings of our blessed SAVIOUR can do that for us; but means by which what he hath merited is conveyed to us.

Nor yet are they the only means of conveying grace; for reading, and hearing, and meditating upon the word of GOD, are part of the things which he hath appointed for this end; and prayer is another part, accompanied with an express promise, that, if we “ask, we shall receive.” (John xvi. 24.) But these, not being such actions as figure out and represent the benefits which they derive to us, though they are means of grace, are not signs of it, and therefore do not come under the notion of sacraments.

But, 5. A sacrament is not only a sign or representation of some heavenly favour, and a means whereby we receive it, but also “a pledge to assure us thereof.” Not that anything can give us a greater assurance, in point of reason, of any blessing from GOD, than his bare promise can do; but that such observances, appointed in token of his promises, affect our imaginations with a stronger sense of them, and make a deeper and more lasting, and therefore more useful, impression on our minds. For this cause, in all nations of the world, representations by action have ever been used, as well as words, upon solemn occasions; especially upon entering into and renewing treaties and covenants with each other. And therefore, in condescension to a practice which, being so universal among men, appears to be founded in the nature of man, GOD hath graciously added to his covenant also the solemnity of certain outward instructive performances, by which he declares to us, that, as surely as our bodies are washed by water, and nourished by bread broken and wine poured forth and received, so surely are our souls purified from sin by the baptism of repentance, and strengthened in all goodness by partaking of that mercy which the wounding of the body of CHRIST and the shedding of his blood hath obtained for us. And thus these religious actions, so far as they are performed by GOD’S minister, in pursuance of his appointment, are an earnest or pledge on his part, which was one ancient signification of the word sacrament; and, so far as we join in them, they are an obligation, binding like an oath on our part, which was the other primitive meaning of the word.—Abp. Secker.

SACRAMENTALS. (See Sacrament.) A name conveniently given to those rites which are of a sacramental character,—such as confirmation and matrimony,—but are not sacraments in the proper and strict sense, as baptism and the holy eucharist.

SACRAMENTARY. In the Romish Church, a book containing the collects, together with the canon, i. e. that part of the Communion Office which is invariable, whatever changes might occur in the other portions of the service.

SACRIFICE. (See Mass, the Sacrifice of.) An offering made to GOD. In strictness of speech, there has been but one sacrifice, once offered, and never to be repeated, the sacrifice of the death of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. He suffered death upon the cross for our redemption, and there, by the one oblation of himself, once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, was once made, and once for all. (See Covenant of Redemption.) But, figuratively speaking, all Divine worship was anciently called a sacrifice—a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; but more especially has this term been applied to the celebration of the eucharist. Justin Martyr, says Dr. Waterland, is the first we meet with who speaks of the eucharist under the name of sacrifice or sacrifices. But he does it so often, and so familiarly, that one cannot but conceive that it had been in common use for some time before; and it is the more likely to have been so, because oblation (which is near akin to it) certainly was.

Irenæus, of the same [the second] century, mentions the sacrifice of the eucharist more than once, either directly or obliquely. Tertullian, not many years later, does the like. Cyprian also speaks of the sacrifice in the eucharist, understanding it in one particular passage of the lay-oblation. This is not the place to examine critically what the ancients meant by the sacrifice or sacrifices of the eucharist. But, as oblation anciently was understood sometimes of the lay-offering, the same may be observed of sacrifice; and it is plain from Cyprian. Besides that notion of sacrifice, there was another, and a principal one, which was conceived to go along with the eucharistical service, and that was the notion of spiritual sacrifice, consisting of many particulars, and it was on the account of one, or both, that the eucharist had the name of sacrifice for the two first centuries. But by the middle of the third century, if not sooner, it began to be called a sacrifice, on account of the grand sacrifice represented and commemorated in it; the sign, as such, now adopting the name of the thing signified. In short, the memorial at length came to be called a sacrifice, as well as an oblation: and it had a double claim to be so called; partly as it was in itself a spiritual service or sacrifice, and partly as it was a representation and commemoration of the high tremendous sacrifice of CHRIST GOD-MAN. This last view of it, being of all the most awful and most endearing, came by degrees to be the most prevailing acceptation of the Christian sacrifice, as held forth in the eucharist. But those who styled the eucharist a sacrifice on that account took care, as often as need was, to explain it off to a memorial of a sacrifice, rather than a strict or proper sacrifice, in that precise view. Cyprian is the first who plainly and directly styles the eucharist a sacrifice in the commemorative view, and as representing the grand sacrifice. Not that there was anything new in the doctrine, but there was a new application of an old name, which had at the first been brought in upon other accounts.—Waterland.

Bishop Burnet remarks, that Christian writers called the eucharist an unbloody sacrifice, as being a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and adds, “In two other respects it may be also more strictly called a sacrifice: one is, because there is an oblation of bread and wine made in it, which being sanctified, are consumed in an act of religion: to this many passages in the writings of the Fathers do relate. Another respect in which the eucharist is called a sacrifice is, because it is a commemoration and a representation to GOD, of the sacrifice that CHRIST offered for us on the cross; in which we lay claim to that as to our expiation, and feast upon it as our peace-offering, according to that ancient notion, that covenants were by a sacrifice, and were concluded in a feast on the sacrifice. Upon these accounts we do not deny, but that the eucharist may be well called a sacrifice; but still it is a commemorative sacrifice, and not propitiatory,” &c.—Burnet.

The ancients, says Bishop Cosin, called the whole communion “the sacrifice of praise,” as our Church doth: whereas the Romanists only call it a sacrifice, without any other addition. But it is not the sacrifice of CHRIST which we here speak of; for that is always pleasing to GOD, and was absolutely perfect: but it is our own peace-offering, in commemoration thereof, in which there have been many failings, and therefore we desire and beg that it may be accepted in mercy.—Dean Comber. In this regard, and in divers others also, the eucharist may, by allusion and analogy, be fitly called “a sacrifice,” and the LORD’S table “an altar;” the one relating to the other, though neither of them can be strictly and properly so termed. It is the custom of Scripture to describe the service of GOD under the New Testament, be it either internal or external, by the terms which otherwise belonged to the Old: as, immolation, offering, sacrifice, and altar. So the evangelical prophet Isaiah, foretelling the glory and amplitude of the Christian Church, speaketh of GOD’S altar which shall be there, upon which “an acceptable offering shall be made.” (See also Rom. xv. 16; Phil. ii. 17; Heb. xiii. 10.) And indeed the sacrament of the eucharist carries the name of a sacrifice, and the table, whereon it is celebrated, an altar of oblation, in a far higher sense than any of their former sacrifices did, which were but the types and figures of those services that are performed in recognition and memory of CHRIST’S one sacrifice, once offered upon the altar of his cross. The prophecy of Malachi concerning the Church under the New Testament, (see Mal. i. 10,) applied by the doctors of the Roman Church to their proper sacrifice, as they call it, of the mass, is interpreted and applied by the ancient Fathers, sometimes in general to all the acts of our Christian religion, and sometimes in particular to the eucharist: that is, the act of our prayers and thanksgiving for the sacrifice of CHRIST once made for us upon the cross, as here we use in the Church of England. The Church of England therefore herein followeth the Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers. (See also Heb. xiii. 16; Rev. viii 3; Ps. cxli. 2.)—Bp. Cosin.

Under which name of the Christian sacrifice, says Joseph Mede, first know, that the ancient Church understood not, as many suppose, the mere sacrament of the body and blood of CHRIST, but the whole sacred action or solemn service of the Church assembled, whereof this sacred mystery was then a prime and principal part, and, as it were, the pearl or jewel of this ring, no public service of the Church being without it. This observed and remembered, I define the Christian sacrifice, ex mente antiquæ ecclesiæ, in this manner: An oblation of thanksgiving and prayer to GOD the FATHER through JESUS CHRIST, and his sacrifice commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith GOD had first been agnized. So that this sacrifice, as you see, hath a double object, or matter; first, praise and prayer, which you may call sacrificium quod. Secondly, the commemoration CHRIST’S sacrifice on the cross, which is sacrificium quo, the sacrifice whereby the other is accepted. For all the prayers, thanksgivings, and devotions of a Christian are tendered up unto GOD in the name of JESUS CHRIST crucified. According whereunto we are wont to conclude our prayers with “through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.” And this is the specification, whereby the worship of a Christian is distinguished from that of the Jew. Now that which we, in all our prayers and thanksgivings, do vocally, when we say per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum, the ancient Church, in her public and solemn service, did visibly by representing him, according as he commanded, in the symbols of his body and blood: for there he is commemorated and received by us for the same end for which he was given and suffered for us; that through him, we receiving forgiveness of our sins, GOD our FATHER might accept our service and hear our prayers we make unto him.

What time then so fit and seasonable to commend our devotions unto GOD, as when the LAMB of GOD lies slain upon the holy table, and we receive visibly, though mystically, those gracious pledges of his blessed body and blood. This was that sacrifice of the ancient Church, which the Fathers so much ring in our ears. The sacrifice of praise and prayer through JESUS CHRIST, mystically represented in the creatures of bread and wine.

But yet there is one thing more my definition intimates, when I say, “through the sacrifice of JESUS CHRIST, commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith GOD had first been agnized.” The body and blood of CHRIST were not made of common bread and common wine, but of bread and wine first sanctified by being offered and set before GOD as a present, to agnize him the LORD and giver of all: according to that, Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus: and “let no man appear before the LORD empty.” Therefore, as this sacrifice consisted of two parts, as I told you, of praise and prayer, which, in respect of the other, I call sacrificium quod; and of the commemoration of CHRIST crucified, which I call sacrificium quo; so the symbols of bread and wine traversed both, being first presented as symbols of praise and thanksgiving to agnize GOD the LORD of the creature in the sacrificium quod; then, by invocation of the HOLY GHOST, made the symbols of the body and blood of CHRIST in the sacrificium quo. So that the whole service throughout consisted of a reasonable part and of a material part, as of a soul and a body; of which I shall speak more fully hereafter, when I come to prove this, I have said, by the testimonies of the ancients.

Again, the LORD’S supper is a sacrifice, according to the style of the ancient Church.

It is one thing to say, that the LORD’S supper is a sacrifice, and another to say, that CHRIST is properly sacrificed therein. These are not the same; for there may be a sacrifice, which is a representation of another, and yet a sacrifice too: and such is this of the New Testament, a sacrifice wherein another sacrifice, that of CHRIST’S death upon the cross, is commemorated: thus the Papists gain nothing by this notion of antiquity, and our asserting the same; for their tenet is, that CHRIST in this sacrifice is really and properly sacrificed, which we shall show in due time that the ancients never meant.

To begin with this: as in the Old Testament the name of sacrifice was otherwhile given to the whole action in which the rite was used; sometimes to the rite alone; so in the notion and language of the ancient Church, sometimes the whole action of Christian service (wherein the LORD’S supper was a part) is comprehended under that name; sometimes the rite of the sacred supper itself is so termed, and truly, as you shall now hear.

The resolution of this point depends altogether upon the true definition of a sacrifice, as it is distinguished from all other offerings. Which, though it be so necessary, that all disputation without it is vain, yet shall we not find, that either party interested in this question hath been so exact therein as were to be wished. This appears by the differing definitions, given and confuted by divines on both sides; the reason of which defect is, because neither are deduced from the notion of Scripture, but built upon other conceptions: let us see, therefore, if it may be learned out of Scripture, what that is which the Scripture, in a strict and special sense, calls a sacrifice.

Every sacrifice is an oblation or offering: but every offering is not a sacrifice, in that strict and proper acceptation we seek. For tithes, first-fruits, heave-offerings in the law, and whatsoever indeed is consecrated unto GOD, are oblations or offerings; but none of them sacrifices, nor ever so called in the Old Testament. What offerings are then called so? I answer, burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings. These, and no other, are called by that name.

Out of these, therefore, must we pick the true and proper ratio of a sacrifice: it is true, indeed, that these sacrifices were offerings of beasts, of beeves, of sheep, of goats, of fowls: but the ratio of anything consists not in the matter thereof; as the gowns we wear are still the same kind of apparel, though made of differing stuffs; these sacrifices also were slain, and offered by fire and incense: but neither is the modus of anything the ratio or essential form thereof. That therefore may have the nature and formale of a sacrifice which consists of another matter, and is offered after another and differing manner: those we call sacraments of the Old Testament, circumcision and the passover, were by effusion of blood; ours are not, and yet we esteem them nevertheless true sacraments; and so it may be here.

To hold you, therefore, no longer in suspense, a sacrifice, I think, should be defined thus: an offering, whereby the offerer is made partaker of his GOD’S table, in token of covenant and friendship with him, &c.: more explicately thus: an offering unto the Divine Majesty, of that which is given for the food of man; that the offerer, partaking thereof, might, as by way of pledge, be certified of his acceptation into covenant, and fellowship with his GOD, by eating and drinking at his table. St. Augustine comes toward this notion, when he defines a sacrifice (though in a larger sense) opus quod Deo nuncupamus, reddimus, et dedicamus, hoc fine, ut sanctâ societate ipsi adhæreamus: for to have society and fellowship with GOD, what is it else but to be in league and covenant with him?

In a word, a sacrifice is oblatio fæderalis.—Joseph Mede.

SACRIFICATI. Christians who, to avoid condemnation before a heathen tribunal, offered sacrifice to an idol. When such persons, after the persecution was over, returned to the profession of CHRIST, they were obliged to undergo a very rigid penance before they could be re-admitted into the Church. It must be observed that Sacrificati is their denomination as penitents, after their return to the faith. Those who continued in idolatry were simply apostates. (See Libellatici and Thurificati.)

SACRILEGE. The act of violating sacred things, or subjecting them to profanation; or the desecration of objects consecrated to GOD. Thus the robbing of churches or of graves, the abuse of sacred vessels and altars, by employing them for unhallowed purposes, the plundering and misappropriation of alms and donations, &c., are acts of sacrilege which, in the ancient Church, were punished with great severity.

SACRISTAN. The person to whose charge the sacred vestments, &c., in a church, are committed; now corrupted to sexton, which see. The sacristan is a dignitary in some foreign cathedrals, as was formerly the case at Glasgow, and the Chapel Royal of Stirling, in Scotland; in both of which places there were treasurers also. In most of the old cathedrals, however, the sacrist was the treasurer’s deputy, and a vicar choral. In those of the new foundation the sacrist is a minor canon, and has often the special cure of souls within the precinct. In Ireland the sacrist at Elphin was a dignitary, now usually styled Treasurer.—Jebb.

SACRISTY. The place in which sacred vestments, &c. are kept, answering to the modern vestry.

SADDUCEES. A famous sect among the Jews; so called, it is said, from their founder, Sadoc. It began in the time of Antigonus, of Socho, president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the principal divinity school of that city. Antigonus, having often in his lectures inculcated to his scholars that they ought not to serve GOD in a servile manner, but only out of filial love and fear, two of his scholars, Sadoc and Baithus, thence inferred that there were no rewards at all after this life; and, therefore, separating from the school of their master, they thought there was no resurrection nor future state, neither angel nor spirit. (Matt. xxii. 23; Acts xxiii. 8.) They seem to agree greatly with the Epicureans; differing however in this, that though they denied a future state, yet they allowed the power of GOD to create the world; whereas the followers of Epicurus denied it. It is said, also, that they rejected the Bible, except the Pentateuch; denied predestination, and taught that GOD had made man absolute master of all his actions, without assistance to good, or restraint from evil.

SAINT. (See Communion of Saints, Invocation of Saints.) A person either in the flesh or out of it, who is made holy by the indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT. The apostles in their Epistles use this word simply for baptized believers, that is, for all Christians.

The word saints is of the same meaning with the word holy; and, therefore, comprehends all Christians in the same manner as has been already explained. Having communion, is being entitled to partake of benefits and kindnesses, and bound to make suitable returns for them. And thus Christians, or saints, have communion or “fellowship” with “the FATHER, from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift;” with his SON JESUS CHRIST, (1 John i. 3; James i. 17,) through whom forgiveness and mercy is conveyed to us; with the HOLY GHOST, whose sanctifying graces are conferred on such as duly qualify their hearts for the reception of them. And for these blessings we owe all thankfulness and all duty, in thought, word, and deed. Christians have also communion with the holy angels, as these “are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14): and undoubtedly we ought to think of what they do for us, with an inward sense of gratitude and love. But, as we are unacquainted with particulars, we can make no particular acknowledgments: nor ought we to make any general ones, by outward expressions of respect; since “worshipping GOD alone” is commanded, (Matt. iv. 10,) and worshipping angels condemned, in Scripture. (Col. ii. 18.)

With respect to those of our own nature, we are bound so far to hold communion even with the worst of unbelievers, as not only to do them every kind of justice, but sincerely to wish, and, if occasion offer, heartily endeavour, their good, both in body and soul. But to all “who have obtained the like precious faith with ourselves,” (2 Pet. i. 1,) we bear a still nearer relation; as being, in a peculiar sense, children of the same Father, disciples of the same Master, animated by the same Spirit, members of the same body. And these things oblige us to the utmost care of preserving, by prudent order and mutual forbearance, as much unity in the Church as we possibly can.

Such, indeed, as obstinately deny the fundamental doctrines, or transgress the fundamental precepts of Christianity, ought to be rejected from Christian communion. But to renounce communicating with any others, who are willing to admit us to it on lawful terms, is the way to cut off ourselves, not them, from the body of CHRIST; who yet, we doubt not, will allow those on both sides to belong to his Church, who, through pardonable passions or mistakes, will not allow one another to do so.

And, as we should maintain communion with all proper persons, we should show our disposition to it in all proper ways: attend on the public instructions, join in the public worship, sacraments, and discipline, which our LORD hath appointed, and keep the whole of them pure from all forbidden or suspicious alterations or mixtures; avoid, with great care, both giving and taking needless offence, in respect to these or any matters; and by all fit means “edify one another in love” (Rom. xiv. 19; Eph. iv. 16): “obeying those who are set over us;” condescending to those who are beneath us; esteeming and honouring the wise and virtuous; teaching and admonishing the ignorant and faulty; bearing with the weak, relieving the poor, and comforting the afflicted.

Nor have we communion only with the saints on earth, but are of one city and one family with such as are already got safe to heaven. Doubtless, they exercise that communion towards us by loving and praying for the brethren whom they have left behind them. And we are to exercise it towards them, not by addressing petitions to them, which we are neither authorized to offer, nor have any grounds to think they can hear; but by rejoicing in their happiness; thanking GOD for the grace which he hath bestowed on them, and the examples which they have left us; holding their memories in honour, imitating their virtues, and beseeching the Disposer of all things, that, having followed them in holiness here, we may meet them in happiness hereafter; and become, in the fullest sense, “fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of GOD” (Eph. ii. 19); “having, with all those that are departed in the true faith of his holy name, our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in his eternal and everlasting glory, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD, Amen.” (See Burial Office.)—Abp. Secker.

SAINTS’ DAYS. (See Feasts.) Two of the most ancient monuments of ecclesiastical history that we possess, except the New Testament, are the accounts of the martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of St. John, written, at the time of their suffering, by the Churches of Antioch and Smyrna, of which they were bishops: and in those they mention, as of course, their purpose of celebrating yearly the festival of their birthdays, of their entrance into a better life, for the commemoration of their excellent graces, and the incitement of others to imitate them. Thus did they provide that the “righteous should be in everlasting remembrance,” (Ps. cxii. 6,) and observed the more particular direction given to that intent in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “Remember them which have (had) the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of GOD; whose faith follow, considering the end,” the event, “of their conversation.” (Heb. xiii. 7.) The rest of the primitive Churches appear to have followed the same rule; and each to have honoured the more eminent of their own martyrs, who had been usually their teachers also, by anniversary assemblies for preserving the reverence due to their characters, and offering up thanks to GOD for their examples.

But the increase of their numbers, and the adoption of the sufferers of one Church into the liturgies of another, and the admission of eminently good persons, who had “not resisted unto blood,” (Heb. xii. 4,) and the frequent grants which in subsequent ages were made, of so high a distinction, with little care of previous inquiry, multiplied the returns of these solemnities very improperly and inconveniently. Then, besides, a still greater evil was, that praises and panegyrics too soon grew to be immoderate, and afterwards impious. In the vehemence of national encomiums and exclamations, the saint was called upon as present, until at length he was thought so; and what at first was merely a bold and moving figure of speech, became at length in good earnest a prayer: which requested of a dead man, who was not able to hear it, not only that he would intercede with GOD on behalf of his fellow-servants, but that he would himself bestow such blessings upon them, as no creature hath in his power. Things being found in this condition at the Reformation, it was necessary both to abolish entirely these unlawful addresses, and to limit the original sort of commemorations to a moderate list of persons, indisputably worthy of them. Accordingly no day is appointed by our Church for the celebration of any other than the principal saints mentioned in the New Testament, it being hard to stop, if more were added. And amongst these, St. Stephen is the only one who stands solely on the foot of being a martyr; as indeed it was fit that the foremost, the leader, of that “noble army” should be distinguished, and chosen, as it were, to represent the rest.—Abp. Secker.

When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, on the question what service shall be used, see the extracts from Shepherd and Bishop Cosin in the article Lessons.

SALUTATION. Having all repeated our creed together, and thereby given good proof that we are members of the Catholic Church, and such as have a right to join in the prayers thereof, we now prepare ourselves to pray. And since salutations have ever been the expressions and badges of that mutual charity, without which we are not fit to pray, therefore we begin with an ancient form of salutation, taken out of Holy Scripture: the minister commencing, salutes the people with “The LORD be with you,” (Ruth ii. 4; Ps. cxxii. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 16,) and they return it with a like prayer, “And with thy spirit,” (2 Tim. iv. 22,) which words have been of early use in the Christian liturgies; and indeed the phrase is the very words of St. Paul; and St. John forbids us to say to any heretic “GOD speed.” (2 John, ver. 10, 11.) But when the minister hath heard every one in the congregation repeat his faith, and seen, by their standing up at it, a testimony of their assent to it, he can now safely salute them all as brethren and members of the true Church; and surely, as difference in religion creates great animosities, so agreement in one faith is an excellent means to beget charity, and to make minister and people heartily pray for one another: the people are going to pray, which they cannot do without GOD’S help, and therefore the minister prays that “the LORD may be with them,” to assist them in the duty, according to that gracious promise of our SAVIOUR, that when two or three are met to pray, he will be with them. (Matt, xviii. 20.) And since the minister prays for all the people, and is their mouth to GOD, they desire he may, heartily and devoutly, offer up these prayers in their behalf, saying, “The LORD be with thy spirit.”—Dean Comber.

By a man’s spirit in Scripture phrase is frequently meant the man himself. So that the people do in reality answer thus: May GOD be with thee, as thou desirest he may be with us, in the oblation of our joint prayers. In this sense the word is used in the place whence this form is borrowed. (2 Tim. iv. 22.)—Dr. Bennet.

Till every person has finished the repetition of the creed, and there is silence in the whole congregation, the minister should not pronounce the words, “The LORD be with you.” These words ought also to be pronounced by the minister in a standing posture, they being addressed to the people. And after the people have returned their answer, the minister should still stand and pronounce these words, “Let us pray;” and then give the people time enough to kneel down, that there may not be the least noise, and every person may be perfectly composed, and ready to join, when the minister begins the prayers.

And because these words, “The LORD be with you,” and the reply of the people, “And with thy spirit;” and those also, “Let us pray,” are all of them directed and spoken, not to Almighty GOD, but only to men; namely, by the minister and people alternately to each other; therefore care should be taken that a difference be made in the tone of voice between these short forms of mutual compellation, and the prayers themselves.—Dr. Bennet.

In the Romish Church the angelical salutation, as they call it, consists of the angel’s salutation, and that of Elizabeth. It runs thus: Ave Maria, gratiæ plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui. Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ. Amen.

The latter clause, Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, was added, they tell us, in the fifth century; but the last words, nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ, were inserted by order of Pope Pius V.

Urban II. ordered a bell to be tolled three times a day to put the people in mind of repeating this salutation, that GOD might prosper the Christian arms in the recovery of the Holy Land; which custom, having continued about 134 years, fell at length into neglect; till Gregory IX. revived it, with the addition of a constant noon-bell.

The repeating of this salutation at the beginning of the sermon was first enjoined by St. Dominic, or, as some will have it, by Vincent Ferrerius. (See Idolatry and Mariolatry.)

SALVATION (see Covenant of Redemption) is taken in Scripture, 1. For deliverance or victory over outward dangers and enemies. (Exod. xiv. 13; 1 Sam. xiv. 45.) 2. For remission of sins, true faith, repentance, and obedience, and other saving graces of the SPIRIT, which are the way to salvation. (Luke xix. 9.) “This day is salvation come to this house.” 3. For eternal happiness hereafter, which is the object of our hopes and desires. Thus it is said, “to give knowledge of salvation to his people.” (Luke i. 77.) “Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation.” (2 Cor. vii. 10.) And the gospel is called, the “gospel of salvation,” (Eph. i. 13,) because it brings the good news that salvation is to be had; it offers salvation to lost sinners; it shows upon what terms it may be had, and the way how to attain it; it also fits for salvation, and at last brings to it. 4. For the author of salvation. (Ps. xxvii. 1.) “The LORD is my light and my salvation,” he is my counsellor in all my difficulties, and my comforter and deliverer in all my distresses. 5. For the person who is the SAVIOUR of sinners. (Luke ii. 30.) “Mine eyes have seen thy salvation,” says Simeon; I have seen him whom thou hast sent into the world, to be the author and procurer of salvation to lost sinners. 6. For the praise and benediction that is given to GOD. (Rev. xix. 1.) “Alleluia, salvation and glory and honour and power unto the LORD our GOD.” The Hebrews but rarely made use of concrete terms as they are called; but often of abstracted. Thus, instead of saying, GOD saves men, and protects them, they say, that GOD is their salvation. Thus the word of salvation, the joy of salvation, the rock of salvation, the shield of salvation, the horn of salvation, &c., is as much as to say, The word that declares deliverance; the joys that attend the escaping a great danger; a rock where any one takes refuge, and where he may be in safety from his enemy; a buckler, that secures him from the arm of the enemy; a horn or ray of light, of happiness and salvation, &c.—Cruden’s Concord.

SAMARITANS. These were a mixed people, inhabiting the parts of Palestine between Galilee and Judea. They were in part descended from the remnant of the ten tribes, most of whom had been carried away by the Assyrians, blended with other distant nations, and settled in the same district with their conquerors. These different people, Babylonians, Cutheans, and other idolaters, for some time retained their respective forms of worship; but finding the country ravaged by wild beasts, they thought to propitiate the god of the country by restoring his worship; and one of the priests, whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and “dwelt at Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.” (2 Kings xvii. 28.) After this, they were delivered from the plague of wild beasts, and embraced the law of Moses, with which they mixed a great part of their ancient idolatry. Upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, it appears that they had entirely quitted the worship of their idols. But though they were united in religion, they were not so in affection, with the Jews; for they employed various calumnies and stratagems to hinder their rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem; and when they could not prevail; they erected a temple on Mount Gerizim, in opposition to that of Jerusalem. (Ezra iv., v., vi.) The Samaritans at present are few in number, but pretend to great strictness in their observation of the law of Moses. They are said to be scattered, some at Damascus, some at Gaza, and some at Grand Cairo in Egypt.

SAMUEL, THE BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called, because they are usually ascribed to the prophet Samuel.

These two books are styled Reigns in the Greek version, and in the vulgar Latin, Kings; but in the Hebrew they are styled the Books of Samuel. But, since the first twenty-four chapters contain all that relates to the history of Samuel, and that the latter part of the First Book, and all the Second, include the relation of events that happened after the death of that prophet, it has been supposed that Samuel was author only of the first twenty-four chapters, and that the prophets Gad and Nathan finished the work. This is the opinion of the Talmudists, founded upon the following text of the Chronicles: “Now the acts of David, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer.”

The Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are a continued history of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah; for which reason, the Books of Samuel are likewise styled the First and Second Books of Kings; and the two Books of Kings are also called the Third and Fourth Books of Kings.

The First Book of Samuel, otherwise called the First Book of Kings, comprehends the transactions under the government of Eli and Samuel, and under Saul the first king; as also the acts of David whilst he lived under Saul; and is supposed to include the space of about 101 years. Here we read, how the republic of Israel was changed into a monarchy, and what great evils they suffered in consequence thereof. We have here an account of the deposition of their first king, Saul, on account of his profane sacrificing, and his wilful disobedience to the commands of GOD, in relation to the destruction of the Amalekites; his treachery to David, and cruel pursuits of him; and, lastly, the tragical death of himself, and his son Jonathan, on Mount Gilboa.

The Second Book of Samuel, otherwise called the Second Book of Kings, contains the history of about forty years, and is wholly spent in relating the transactions of King David’s reign; the military exploits of that prince, and his administration both of the Church and of the State. With these are mixed the great failings and miscarriages of David, and, in consequence thereof, the many distresses he met with, and the various judgments and plagues inflicted upon him and his people by GOD.

SANCTE BELL. A small bell which was rung when the “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus, Deus Sabaoth” was said, to prepare the people for the elevation of the host.

Mr. Todd, in his additions to Johnson’s Dictionary, quotes from Warton’s History of Kiddington, as follows: “It was usually placed where it might be heard farthest, in a lantern at the springing of the steeple, or in a turret at the angle of the tower; and sometimes, for the convenience of its being more readily and exactly rung, within a pediment, or arcade, between the church and the chancel; the rope, in this situation, falling down into the choir, not far from the altar.” Thus in Walton’s Life of George Herbert: “And some of the meaner sort of his parish did so love and reverence Mr. Herbert, that they would let their plough rest when Mr. Herbert’s Saints’ bell rung to prayers, that they might also offer their devotions to God with him; and would then return back to their plough.” The small bell at Canterbury rung before service, is hung high in the central tower, and seems to answer to the ancient Saints’ bell. Mr. Todd adds, that “the little bell, which now rings immediately before the service begins, is corruptly called, in many places, Saucebell, or Sauncebell.”

SANCTIFICATION. (See Justification.) The progressive conformity of the heart and life to the will of GOD, or our inherent righteousness, as distinguished from the righteousness of justification. To say that we detract from the necessity of inherent righteousness, or what is called the righteousness of sanctification, because we exclude it from the office of justification, and thus demolish the whole fabric of human merit, is about as reasonable as to say, that because we receive food by the mouth, and not by the ear or the eye, the eye and the ear are unnecessary members in the human frame, and that no other bodily functions are requisite to the life of man. The man will die if, by tetanus, he is unable to open his mouth; but he will also die if, having received food into his mouth, he is unable to digest it; and yet the digestion of food, and its mastication, are processes entirely distinct, while the food itself is a gift from without. It is one thing to assert that a Christian must have inherent righteousness, and another to assert that his inherent righteousness is the ground of his acceptance with a righteous GOD.

We may refer to Hooker for a clear exposition of the case: “Concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent; we grant that, unless we work, we have it not; only we distinguish it as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification: we are righteous the one way, by the faith of Abraham; the other way, except we do the works of Abraham, we are not righteous. Of the one, St. Paul, ‘To him that worketh not, but believeth, faith is counted for righteousness.’ Of the other, St. John, ‘He is righteous which worketh righteousness.’ Of the one, St. Paul doth prove by Abraham’s example, that we have it of faith without works. Of the other, St. James, by Abraham’s example, that by works we have it, and not only by faith.

“St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Christian righteousness one from the other. For in the sixth to the Romans thus he writeth: Being freed from sin, and made servants to God, ye have your fruit in holiness, and the end everlasting life.

“‘Ye are made free from sin, and made servants unto GOD;’ this is the righteousness of justification.

“‘Ye have your fruit in holiness;’ this is the righteousness of sanctification.

“By the one we are interested in the right of inheriting; by the other we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss; and so the end of both is everlasting life.”

In another passage of the same discourse Hooker says: “It is a childish cavil wherewith, in the matter of justification, our adversaries do so greatly please themselves, exclaiming, that we tread all Christian virtues under our feet, and require nothing in Christians but faith; because we teach that faith alone justifieth: whereas, by this speech, we never meant to exclude either hope or charity from being always joined as inseparable mates with faith in the man that is justified; or works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of every justified man: but to show that faith is the only hand which putteth on CHRIST unto justification; and CHRIST the only garment, which, being so put on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures, hideth the imperfection of our works, preserveth us blameless in the sight of GOD, before whom otherwise the weakness of our faith were cause sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us from the kingdom of heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter.”

“It is not the question,” says Bishop Andrewes, “whether we have an inherent righteousness or no, or whether GOD will accept or reward it; but whether that must be our righteousness coram rege justo judicium faciente, which is a point very material, and by no means to be forgotten; for, without this, if we compare ourselves with ourselves, what heretofore we have been, or if we compare ourselves with others, as did the Pharisees, we may take a fancy, perhaps, and have some good conceit of our inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools by argument or disputation, we may, peradventure, argue for it, and make some show in the matter. But let us once be brought and arraigned coram rege justo sedente in solio, let us set ourselves there, we shall then see that all our former conceit shall vanish straight, and righteousness in that sense (that is, an inherent righteousness) will not abide the trial.”

“The Homilies of our Church,” as Dr. Waterland, adopting their doctrine, observes, “describe and limit the doctrine thus: ‘Faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of GOD, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified: but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying;’ that is to say, from the office of accepting or receiving it; for as to the office of justifying in the active sense, that belongs to GOD only, as the same homily elsewhere declares. The doctrine is there further explained thus: ‘Because faith doth directly send us to CHRIST for remission of our sins, and that, by faith given us of GOD, we embrace the promise of GOD’S mercy, and of the remission of our sins, (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth,) therefore the Scripture useth to say, that faith without works doth justify.’”

It is observed by Faber “that, in the progress of a Christian man from his original justification to his final salvation, these several states or conditions of righteousness successively appertain to him.

“First in order comes the forensic righteousness of justification; a righteousness reputatively his, through faith, and on account of the perfect meritoriousness of CHRIST.

“Next in order comes the inherent righteousness of sanctification; a righteousness infused into him by the HOLY SPIRIT after he has been justified.

“And last in order comes the complete righteousness of glorification; a righteousness acquired by him, when this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality.

“The first righteousness, being the righteousness of CHRIST, is perfect, but not inherent.

“The second righteousness, being the subsequently infused righteousness of a justified Christian man, is inherent, but not perfect.

“The third righteousness, being the acquired righteousness of a departed Christian man in his glorified state hereafter, is both perfect and inherent.”

SANCTIFY. (See Sanctification.) To make holy, to treat as holy, or to set apart for holy services. (Exod. xix. 10, 22, 23; xxx. 29; Deut. v. 13; Isa. viii. 13; xxix. 23; Eph. v. 26; 1 Thess. v. 23.)

SANCTUARY. The holy of holies (Lev. iv. 6); the temple at large (2 Chron. xx. 8); the one place of national worship for the Israelites (Deut. xii. 5); also the place within the Septurn, or rails, where the altar stands in the Christian church.

By sanctuary is also meant the privilege of criminals who have fled to certain sacred places, to have their freedom from arrest and punishment, except ecclesiastical discipline, so long as they remain therein. This custom of sanctuary, which is now almost everywhere done away with, for the abuse to which it gave rise, was derived from the Levitical law of refuge, by which, at GOD’S express appointment, six cities were made cities of refuge for the involuntary manslayer: and the altar of burnt-offerings was also a place of refuge for persons who had undesignedly committed smaller offences. (Deut. xix. 11, 12; Joshua xx.) In this Divine law the object seems to have been to mark GOD’S hatred of sin, by showing that even accidental and unpremeditated offences were forgiven only by an especial exercise of his mercy. The corrupt custom of sanctuary in the middle ages was extended to the protection of those who knowingly and willingly committed the most heinous offences. (See Asylum.)

SANCTUS. (See Tersanctus.)

SANDEMANIANS, or GLASSITES. A dissenting community, which had its origin in the preaching and deposition of one John Glas, presbyterian minister of the parish of Tealing, near Dundee, in 1730. His pupil, Robert Sandeman, brought his doctrine into England, and also into America, and from him the sect derives its name, though in Scotland it is still designated after its first founder. The Sandemanians are not a numerous sect.

The following is the account of the Sandemanians in the Registrar-general’s Return.

“The Sandemanians—sometimes called Glassites, both appellations being derived from the names of the founders of the sect—first came into notice in Scotland about 1728 or 1729; when Mr. Glass, a minister of the Scottish National Church, avowed opinions on Church government approaching very nearly those maintained by Congregationalists. Robert Sandeman appeared in advocacy of the same opinions about 1757, and formed a congregation in London in 1762.

“The prominent doctrine of the Sandemanians, on which they differ from most other Churches, relates to the nature of justifying faith, which Sandeman maintained to be ‘no more than a simple assent to the Divine testimony, passively received by the understanding.’

“Sandemanians, also, observe certain peculiar practices, supposed by them to have been prevalent amongst the primitive Christians, such as weekly sacraments, love feasts, mutual exhortation, washing each other’s feet, plurality of elders, the use of the lot, &c.

“The number of Sandemanian congregations in England reported by the Census officers was six; the number of sittings (after an estimate for two chapels where the information was not given) was 956; and the number of attendants on the Census Sunday was: Morning, 439; Afternoon, 256; Evening, 61.

SANHEDRIM, or SENATE. A corrupted word, from the Greek, συνέδριον. (See St. Mark xiv. 55; xv. 1; St. Luke xxii. 66, where mention is made of the Synedrion: St. John xi. 47; Acts iv. 15.) The origin of the Sanhedrim is not without obscurity; for the council of the seventy elders established by Moses was not what the Hebrews understood by the name of Sanhedrim. Nor can we perceive this establishment under Joshua, the Judges, or the Kings. We find nothing of it after the captivity till the time of Judas Maccabeus. The tribunals established by Gabinius were very different from the Sanhedrim. This was the only court of its kind, and fixed at Jerusalem; whereas, Gabinius established five tribunals at five different cities, which tribunals do not appear to have been subordinate one to another. Lastly, it is certain that this senate was in being in time of JESUS CHRIST. (Vide supra.) But the Jews inform us themselves, that they then had not the power of life and death. (St. John xviii. 31.)—Calmet, ed. Taylor. The chief council of the Jewish nation, composed of seventy or seventy-two judges, and said to have taken its rise from the seventy elders appointed to assist Moses.

SARUM. (See Use.)

SATAN. A Hebrew word, ‏שטן‎, signifying an adversary, an enemy, an accuser. It is often translated adversary in our translation of the Bible, as also in the Septuagint and Vulgate. For example, (1 Sam. xxix. 4,) the princes of the Philistines say to Achish, “Send back David, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us, and turn his arm against us.” The LORD stirred up adversaries to Solomon in the persons of Hadad and Rezon. (1 Kings xi. 14, 23, &c.) Sometimes Satan is put for the Devil; for example, Satan presented himself among the sons of GOD, and the LORD said unto Satan, “Whence comest thou?” (Job i. 6, 7, &c.) And in Psalm cix. 6, it is said, “Let Satan stand at his right hand;” and in Zech. iii. 1, 2, it is said, “Satan standing at his right hand; and the LORD said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan.’” In the books of the New Testament, the word Satan is taken both in the sense of an adversary, and also for the Devil; for example, CHRIST says to Peter, (Matt. xvi. 23,) “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me;” that is, Begone, O mine adversary, you that withstand what I most desire, and what I came into the world about. But most commonly Satan is taken for the Devil. (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23.) “If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself.” And in the Revelation, (xx. 2,) “He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.” (See the article Devil.)

SATAN, KINGDOM OF. In the Gospel, (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23, and Luke xi. 18,) our blessed LORD represents Satan to us as a monarch, who has other subordinate devils obedient to him. Beelzebub is, as it were, their king. “If Beelzebub,” says he, “drives out devils, his kingdom is divided against itself; he labours for his own ruin; which is by no means credible; it is therefore false that I drive out devils in the name of Beelzebub.” St. Paul acknowledges in the Acts, (xxvi. 18,) that all those which are not in the religion of JESUS CHRIST, are under the empire and power of Satan. St. John (Rev. xx. 7) says, that, after a thousand years, Satan should be unbound, should come forth from hell, and subdue the nations.

To be delivered up to Satan is to be excommunicated, and surrendered to the Devil for a season, who visibly possessed this sort of people, that had deserved this punishment for their crimes or errors. St. Paul delivered up to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander, (1 Tim. i. 20,) that they might not learn to blaspheme. He also surrendered up to him the incestuous person of Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5,) “For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the LORD JESUS.”

When CHRIST sent forth his disciples to preach in the cities and villages of Judea, they returned back with great joy, and told him, saying, “LORD, even the devils are subject to us through thy name.” (Luke x. 17, 18.) JESUS tells them, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven;” where he seems to allude to that passage of Isaiah, (xiv. 12,) “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning;” and by which he insinuates that the kingdom of the Devil was coming to a period; that Satan should soon lose his power and dominion in the world, by the preaching and miracles of the apostles; and in Luke xxii. 31, he says, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:” showing thereby what vain efforts the Devil would make to destroy the infant Church.

SATISFACTION. (See Atonement, Covenant of Redemption, Jesus, Propitiation.) Whatever that is, which being done or suffered by an offending creature himself, or by another person for him, shall secure the favour of the Divine government, in bestowing upon the offender pardon and happiness, may be properly called a satisfaction or atonement made to GOD for him. In saying this, it is not intended to assert that it is in the power of any creature to satisfy for his own sins, for this is impossible; but only to show what we mean when we speak of his doing it.

Such a sense of the word satisfaction, though not in strict propriety of speech amounting to the payment of a debt, is agreeable to the use of the word in the Roman law; where it signifies to content a person aggrieved, and is put for some valuable consideration, substituted instead of what is a proper payment, and consistent with a remission of that debt or offence for which such supposed satisfaction is made: which is a circumstance to be carefully observed, in order to vindicate the doctrine we are about to establish, and to maintain the consistency between different parts of the Christian scheme.

CHRIST has made satisfaction for the sins of all those who repent of their sins, and return to GOD in the way of sincere, though imperfect, obedience.

1. Although CHRIST was innocent, nevertheless he endured very grievous sufferings, both in body and mind (Isa. liii. 3; Matt. xxvi. 38); and he did this spontaneously. (Heb. x. 7, 9.)

2. It is expressly asserted in Scripture, that these sufferings were brought upon CHRIST for the sake of sinful men, in whose stead he is also said to have suffered. (Isa. liii. 5, 6, 10; Matt. xx. 28; Rom. iii. 25; v. 6, 8; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13; Eph. v. 2; Heb. vii. 27; ix. 26; x. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 24; iii. 18.)

3. The offers of pardon and eternal salvation are made in Scripture to those that repent and return to GOD, for the sake of what CHRIST has done and suffered: in whom they are therefore declared to be accepted by GOD, and to whom they are hereupon taught to ascribe the glory of their salvation. (John iii. 14–17; Acts x. 35, 36, 43; ii. 38; iii. 18, 19; Rom. iv. 25; Col. i. 20–22; 2 Cor. v. 18, 20; Eph. i. 5, 7; Heb. ii. 3; ix. 14; x. 4, 10, 14; Rev. i. 5, 6; v. 9, 10; vii. 13, 14.)

4. It is evident that, according to the gospel institution, pardon and life were to be offered to all to whom the preaching of the gospel came, without any exception. (Mark xvi. 15, 16; Acts xiii. 38, 39; 1 John ii. 1, 2; Isa. liii. 6; John i. 29.)

5. It is plain, from the whole tenor of the epistolary part of the New Testament, as well as from some particular passages of it, that there was a remainder of imperfection, generally at least, to be found even in the best Christians; notwithstanding which they are encouraged to rejoice in the hope of salvation by CHRIST. (Phil. iii. 13; Gal. v. 17; James iii. 2; 1 John i. 8, 10; ii. 1, 2.)

6. Whereas, so far as we can judge, the remission of sin, without any satisfaction at all, might have laid a foundation for men’s thinking lightly of the law of GOD, it is certain that, by the obedience and sufferings of CHRIST, a very great honour is done to it; and mercy communicated to us as the purchase of his blood, comes in so awful as well as so endearing a manner, as may have the best tendency to engage those who embrace the gospel to a life of holy obedience.

SATISFACTION, ROMISH. This lies at the bottom of much of the Romish heresy. It directly opposes the doctrine of justification by faith only, and is closely connected with the Romish notion of the merits of good works. The following is the eighth chapter of the Council of Trent upon the subject.

“Lastly, as concerns satisfaction, which of all the parts of repentance, as it has been at all times recommended by our fathers to the Christian people, so now, in our time, is chiefly impugned, under the highest pretence of piety, by those who teach a form of godliness, but have denied the power thereof; the holy synod declares that it is altogether false, and contrary to the word of GOD, to say that sin is never remitted by the LORD, but the entire punishment is also pardoned. For, besides Divine tradition, clear and illustrious examples are found in the holy books, by which this error is most plainly refuted. In truth, even the principle of Divine justice seems to demand that they who have sinned through ignorance before baptism should be received by him into grace, after a different manner from those who, having been once freed from the bondage of sin and Satan, and having received the gift of the HOLY GHOST, have not been afraid knowingly to violate the temple of GOD, and to grieve the HOLY SPIRIT: and it becometh the Divine mercy that our sins should not be so remitted without any satisfaction, lest we take occasion to think lightly of our sins, and so, injuring and insulting the HOLY SPIRIT, we fall into worse, treasuring up unto ourselves wrath against the day of wrath. For, beyond all doubt, these punishments of satisfaction recall the penitents very much from sin, and restrain them, as it were, with a bit, and make them more cautious and watchful for the future. They cure also the remains of sins, and by actions of opposite virtues, destroy vicious habits acquired by evil living. Nor, in truth, was there ever any way considered in the Church more sure for the removal of the impending punishment of GOD, than that men, with real grief of mind, should accustom themselves to these works of repentance. To this may be added, that while we suffer by making satisfaction for sins, we are made like unto CHRIST JESUS, who made satisfaction for our sins, from whom all our sufficiency is derived; and having hence, also, a most sure covenant, that, if we suffer with him, we shall be also glorified together. Nor, in truth, is this satisfaction which we pay for our sins in such sort ours, that it should not be through CHRIST JESUS; for we who of ourselves can do nothing as of ourselves, can do all things by the assistance of him who comforteth us; so that a man hath not whereof he may boast; but all our boasting is in CHRIST, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction; doing worthy fruits of repentance, which have their virtue from him, by him are offered to the FATHER, and through him accepted of the FATHER. The priests of the LORD therefore ought, according to the suggestions of the SPIRIT and their own prudence, to enjoin wholesome and suitable satisfaction, proportioned to the quality of the crimes, and the means of the penitents: lest, haply, they become partakers in other men’s sins, if they connive at sin, and deal too tenderly with the penitents, enjoining trifling works for the most grievous crimes. Let them have also before their eyes, that the satisfaction which they impose is not only for a defence of the new life, and a remedy for infirmity, but also a revenge and punishment for past sins: for the ancient Fathers believe and teach that the keys of the priests were given not only for loosing but also for binding. Nor did they therefore think that the sacrament of repentance is the tribunal of anger and punishments; just as no Catholic has ever thought that, by our satisfactions of this kind, the force of the merit and satisfaction of our LORD JESUS CHRIST was either obscured or lessened in any degree: which, while our innovators are unwilling to understand, they teach that a new life is the best repentance, that they may destroy altogether the virtue and use of satisfaction.”

This, says Perceval in his “Romish Schism,” is a remarkable chapter. The repeated expressions of reference to our blessed LORD, “in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction when we perform worthy fruits of repentance, which from them have power, by him are offered to the FATHER, and through him are accepted of the FATHER,” plainly show how keenly alive the Tridentine Fathers were to the danger of men considering their own penances as irrespective of our LORD’S death and mediation, against which error they thus endeavour to guard. But the other error of making GOD, or GOD’S ministers in his behalf, through vengeance of past sins, and not merely for the correction of the offence, insist upon penal satisfactions from those who, with true repentance, and with faith in CHRIST, have forsaken their sins, as though the vicarial punishment inflicted upon the SON of GOD were not sufficient to satisfy the Divine vengeance, is left, and must needs be left, untouched. But how great injury this does to the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of our LORD, and how great injury also to the character of our heavenly FATHER, there need no arguments to prove. The passages cited by the publishers of the Tridentine decrees, (Gen. iii., 2 Sam. xii., Num. xii. and xx.,) being all taken from the old dispensation, cannot be pressed, because the analogy of GOD’S dealings before and after the sufferings of our LORD will not altogether hold: besides, they all relate to cases of open sin, in which, for the edification of others, temporal punishment was inflicted, from which no argument whatever can be adduced in behalf of vindictive penalties for secret sins, which have been repented of, confessed, and forsaken, with faith in CHRIST. It would seem from certain expressions, that they consider the practice of the virtues most opposed to the sins committed among the vindictive penalties for sin. A strange and most unhappy light in which to regard what the Scriptures would have us consider our highest privileges and our choicest happiness. That the practice of the Church of Rome is in accordance with this is placed beyond all doubt, when it is known that the repeating a certain number of prayers is often enjoined as a penance or punishment for sin.

SAVIOUR. (See Jesus.) One who delivers from danger and misery; as GOD does by his providential care (Psalm cvi. 21; Isa. xlv. 15, 21; lxiii. 8; Jer. xiv. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 10); and as does our LORD JESUS CHRIST (Luke ii. 11; John iv. 42; Acts v. 31; xiii. 23; Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20). He saves from sin (Matt. i. 21); from the thraldom of Satan (Heb. ii. 14; 1 John iii. 8); from the world (Gal. i. 4); from the sting of death (1 Cor. xv. 55, 57); from the grave (1 Cor. xv. 22, 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21); from hell (1 Thess. i. 10); and brings to the enjoyment of eternal bliss in heaven (Matt. xxv. 34; 1 Pet. i. 3, 4; 2 Pet. i. 11). CHRIST is able to save to the uttermost (Heb. vii. 25); and he is willing to save all who come to him (Matt. xi. 28; John vi. 37).

SAVOY CONFERENCE. A conference held at the Savoy, in London, in 1661, between the Catholic divines of the Church of England and the Presbyterians; of which the following is a brief account: The object was to ascertain what concessions with respect to the liturgy could conciliate the Presbyterians, or Low Church party of that day. The representatives of that body demanded the discontinuance of all responses and similar divisions in the Litany; an abolition of saints’ days; an introduction of extemporaneous prayer; a change as to several of the Epistles and Gospels, which, remaining in the old version, contained various errors; the lengthening of the collects; the rejection of the Apocrypha; a removal from the baptismal office of the word regenerated, as applied to all baptized persons; and a similar rejection of the giving thanks for brethren taken by GOD to himself, as embracing all alike who were interred, both these phrases being held incompatible with the commination. They would have the liturgy be more particular, and the catechism more explicit. They consented to give up the Assembly’s Catechism for the Thirty-nine Articles somewhat altered; and they wound up their expectations with the old request, that the cross, ring, surplice, and kneeling at the sacrament should be left indifferent.

On the contrary, the Church commissioners maintained that bishops already performed ordination with the assistance of presbyters; that it was expedient to retain a certain number of holy-days for the reasonable recreation of the labouring classes; that the surplice was a decent emblem of that purity which became the ministers of GOD; that its high antiquity was shown by St. Chrysostom in one of his homilies; and that it received a sanction from several passages in the Revelation (ch. iii. 4, 5). They affirmed that CHRIST himself kept the feast of dedication, a festival of human appointment; that the sign of the cross had been always used “in immortali lavacro;” that kneeling was an ancient and decent usage, and that the high antiquity of liturgies in the Church is indisputable. To the demand that the answers of the people should be confined to “Amen,” they replied, that Dissenters say more in their psalms and hymns; if then in poetry, why not in prose? if in the Psalms of Hopkins, why not in those of David? and if in a Psalter, why not in a Litany? That Scripture contained all which is needful for salvation, they deemed no more an objection to the Apocrypha than to preaching. To read the Communion Service at the communion table was maintained to be an ancient custom, and “let ancient customs be observed, unless reason demands their abolition,” was the golden rule of the Council of Nice.

They could see no real advantage in compromise and concession. What had the former alternate preaching of regular incumbents and puritanical lecturers ever effected but the sowing of perpetual dissensions in every parish, the aspersion of the characters and defeating of the usefulness of regular pastors, and a distraction of the people’s minds with different winds of doctrine, till they knew not what to believe? In truth, it was certain that whatever concessions might be made, so long as the love of novelty, the pride of argumentation, the passion for holding forth, and the zeal for proselytizing, continued to be principles in the human heart, no concession would ever abolish sects in religion; while the Church of England, by departing from her ancient practice, would only compromise her dignity, and forfeit her title to due reverence. Yet, since some fondly conceived that all parties, tired of dissension and disturbance, were now eager to coalesce; and that to concede the minor points of difference to the Presbyterian ministers would afford them a plausible excuse for maintaining harmony without violating their principles; they would not object to a revision of the liturgy, they would even give up the ceremonies, if any shadow of objection could be brought forward on the score of their sinfulness or impropriety. Their antagonists, however, refused to accept this challenge, since admitting them to be neither sinful nor improper, they deemed it sufficient to show that a positive obligation should not be imposed with respect to things indifferent. On this question, which was in fact the point at issue, as the parties could come to no agreement, the conference, like the former, terminated in mutual dissatisfaction.—See Cardwell’s History of the Conferences.

The object aimed at by those who would have lowered the terms of conformity, was, in itself, inexpressibly inviting. It was their hope to see the great body of professing Christians in England united in one communion: so to annihilate that schism, which, in the judgment of both parties, had been the great blemish of the English Church, from almost the earliest stage of the Reformation. But, allowing every merit to the intention, can we, at this day, refuse the praise of deeper foresight to their opponents; who argued, that if some things were changed, in order to please the party then applying, successive parties might arise, making fresh demands, and inventing as good reasons for the second and third concessions, as had been urged for the first?... If such an ecclesiastical modification as was wished for by Judge Hale and his associates had been adopted, general pacification could not, even then, have been attained; and the discovery of new grounds of dissent would have made the prospect more and more hopeless. In the mean time, the English Church establishment would have parted with some of its most distinguishing characteristics; those features, in particular, which are derived from the ancient Church, would have been, in a great measure, defaced; and of course, the principle of adhering, on all doubtful points, to the concurrence of Christian antiquity, could have been insisted on no longer. Had the Church of England thus deserted her ancient ground, where, we cannot but ask, should alteration have stopped? A practice once originated is repeated without difficulty. Can we, then, entertain a doubt, that the successive endeavours which have been used, at one time, to new-modify the forms of our worship; at another, to abate the strictness of our doctrinal creed; would have been as successful as, in our actual circumstances, they have proved abortive? To nothing, under heaven, can we so reasonably ascribe the defeat of all such efforts, as to the dread of disturbing what had remained so long substantially unaltered. Had there been no room for this feeling, other considerations might not have been available, against the apparent plausibility of what was asked, or the persevering ardour of the applicants. Had the work of demolition once begun, its progress would have been both certain and illimitable; each successive change would have been the precedent for another, yet more substantial and vital.—Alexander Knox, Pref. to 2nd Ed. of Burnet’s Lives.

SAXON. The earliest development of Romanesque, as applied to ecclesiastical architecture in England, is so called. Historically this style ought to extend from the coming of St. Augustine to the Conquest (1066); but the intercourse of England with Normandy was so constant before that time, that there can be no doubt we had already much Norman architecture. It is scarcely less to be doubted that many more ante-Conquest buildings yet remain, than are usually accounted Saxon. The characters most relied on to determine Saxon work are the long and short work, triangular headed doors and windows, the splaying of the windows externally as well as internally, and the occurrence of baluster shafts in the windows. These, however, are not constant in well-authenticated Saxon buildings, nor do they invariably indicate a Saxon date.

SAYING AND SINGING. The parts of the service directed to be said or sung, or sung or said, are, the Venite, the Psalms, (in the title page of the Prayer Book,) the Te Deum, (and by inference and analogy,) the Canticles; the Apostles’ Creed, the Litany, the Athanasian Creed, the Easter Anthem, the Nicene Creed, the Sanctus, the Gloria in Excelsis, the psalm in the Matrimonial Service, the commencing sentences and two anthems in the Burial Service, the Communion Service, the communion service in the Ordination of Deacons and Priests, and the Veni Creator in the Ordination of Priests and Bishops. These two phrases have no difference in meaning, since the Apostles’ Creed is directed to be sung or said, in the Morning Service; to be said or sung, in the Evening. It appears that the ecclesiastical use of the word say is two-fold: (1.) As a general term, including all methods of recitation, with or without note, or musical inflection. In this sense it is used in our Prayer Book, when employed alone. (2.) As a more technical and restricted term, used in contradistinction to singing; and yet not to singing in the general sense, but in one or more of its restricted senses.

For the word sing, as is well known, has more than one ecclesiastical sense; since it includes, (1.) all that is recited, in whatever way, in a musical tone; in which sense it is not used in the Prayer Book; (2.) that which is chanted, like the Psalms, Athanasian Creed, and Litany; (3.) that which is sung anthem-wise, like the Anthems, Canticles, Hymns, and Nicene Creed. In these two last senses it is contradistinguished from say in the Prayer Book.

The phrase sung or said specifies those parts of the service only, in which, when said, the minister has a distinctive part, whether (1.) leading or preceding the people in each clause; or (2.) reciting alternate verses with them; or (3.) reciting the passage alone; but which, when sung, are sung by the minister and people, or choir, all together, without any distinctive part being assigned to him. And it may be added, these parts may be, and usually are, sung to the organ. The phrase never applies to those parts of the service which are always to be repeated by the minister alone in the versicle, and by the people in the response.

The instance given above of the communion service in the Ordination of Priests and Bishops, is the only direction to which this rule does not appear exactly applicable. But here, from the nature of the case, the Communion Service is spoken of in a general way; and we are, of course, referred to its special rubrics in their proper places. All that is meant is this, that the service shall be performed chorally or parochially, according as circumstances may allow or require.

With respect to the Apostles’ Creed, that is the only instance in which the permission or injunction of the rubric to sing this part of the service, (that is, to sing it anthem-wise, or to the organ,) has never been acted on. This rubric was altered to its present form at the last review; as before it had merely been directed to be said. The words “or sung” seem to have been inserted in order to preserve the analogy between this creed and the Nicene, which it resembles in its construction.

But this is only apparent. For the Litany may seem an exception to the rule. When said, it is repeated alternately, as verse and response, by the minister and people. But the regular choral usage is, not that the minister, or a priest, but two chanters should sing together those parts which the minister reads in a parish church, and which in some old choral books are here called versicles, as far as the LORD’S Prayer exclusive. And this, not with the common intonation and inflection used in prayers and versicles, (which have come under the denomination of singing,) but with the modulation of a regular chant; which in some parts of the Litany (the invocation e. g.) these two chanters sing throughout; while in others they form the first part of the chant, the response of the choir forming the second. This particular service has often been set to artificial music, both before and after the last review. No notice of Minister (or Priest) and Answer are prefixed to the former part of the Litany; while in the latter part, when there are such notices, the suffrages are always recited by one minister, and answered by the choir or people.

Now if in a choir the minister were to read, or simply intone, the versicles of the first part of the Litany, that service would then not be sung, but said, according to the meaning of the rubric, even though the responses were chanted; the word singing including the whole portion of the service then specified, not a part only. And this is probably the reason why the ancient harmonized Litanies by various composers are generally set to music in the former part only; the supplications, or latter part, being customarily sung in choirs to the ordinary chant.

But the rubrics by no means interfere with, and indeed do not allude to, the chanting of prayers and responses immemorially used in choirs; the singing which the rubrics specify being a different thing from choral or responsional recitation. The responses were, and are still, frequently sung to the organ. But singing (as used in the Prayer Book) never has reference to a mere response. In fact, the word answer is an ecclesiastical term, which in choirs always implies singing, (in its common and general sense,) as attention to the older documents on which our Prayer Book was based will show.—Jebb.

SCARF. A piece of silk or other stuff which hangs from the neck, and is worn over the rochet or surplice. It is not mentioned in the rubric of the English ritual, but is worn by our bishops and dignitaries of the Church. It is used from long custom, and may be referred to the ancient practice of the Church, according to which presbyters and bishops wore a scarf or stole in the administration of the sacraments, and on some other occasions. The stole has been used from the most primitive ages by the Christian clergy. It was fastened on one shoulder of the deacon’s alb, and hung down before and behind. The priest had it over both shoulders, and the ends of it hung down in front. Thus simply were the dresses of the priests and deacons distinguished from each other in primitive times.

SCEPTICS. (From the Greek word σκέπτομαι, to look about, to deliberate.) This word was applied to an ancient sect of philosophers founded by Pyrrho, who denied the real existence of all qualities in bodies except those which are essential to primary atoms, and referred everything else to the perceptions of the mind produced by external objects; in other words, to appearance and opinion. In modern times, the word has been applied to Deists, or those who doubt of the truth and authenticity of the sacred Scriptures.

SCHISM, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, is a breaking off from communion with the Church, on account of some disagreement in matters of faith or discipline. The word is of Greek original, and signifies a fissure or rent.

We shall easily learn what the ancients meant by the unity of the Church and schism, if we consider the following particulars:—1. That there were different degrees of unity and schism, according to the proportion of which a man was said to be more or less united to the Church, or divided from it. 2. That they who retained faith and baptism, and the common form of Christian worship, were in those respects at unity with the Church; though, in other respects, in which their schism consisted, they might be divided from her. 3. That to give a man the denomination of a true Catholic Christian, absolutely speaking, it was necessary that he should in all respects, and in every kind of unity, be in perfect and full communion with the Church; but to denominate a man a schismatic, it was sufficient to break the unity of the Church in any one respect; though the malignity of the schism was to be interpreted, more or less, according to the degrees of separation he made from her. Because the Church could not ordinarily judge of men’s hearts, or of the motives that engaged them in error and schism, therefore she was forced to proceed by another rule, and judge of their unity with her by their external communion and professions.

And as the Church made a distinction between the degrees of schism, so did she between the censures inflicted on schismatics; for these were proportioned to the quality and heinousness of the offence. Such as absented themselves from church for a short time (which was reckoned the lowest degree of separation) were punished with a few weeks’ suspension. Others, who attended only some part of the service, and voluntarily withdrew when the eucharist was to be administered: these, as greater criminals, were denied the privilege of making any oblations, and excluded for some time from all the other holy offices of the Church. But the third sort of separatists, who are most properly called schismatics, being those who withdrew totally and universally from the communion of the Church, and endeavoured to justify the separation; against these the Church proceeded more severely, using the highest censure, that of excommunication, as against the professed enemies and destroyers of her peace and unity.

Ecclesiastical history presents us with a view of several considerable schisms, in which whole bodies of men separated from the communion of the Catholic Church. Such were, in the fourth century, the schisms of the Donatists, and the many heretics that sprung up in the Church, as the Arians, Photinians, Apollinarians, &c.; the schism of the Church of Antioch, occasioned by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, in Sardinia; in the fifth century, the schism of the Church of Rome, between Laurentius and Symmachus; in the ninth century, the separation of the Greek Church from the Latin; but, particularly, the grand schism of the popes of Rome and Avignon, in the fourteenth century, which lasted till the end of the Council of Pisa, 1409.—Bingham.

It is a causeless separation from such governors in the Church as have received their authority and commission from JESUS CHRIST. If there be a sufficient cause, then there may be a separation, but no schism. But if there be no sufficient ground for the separation, it is schism, that is, a culpable separation, which was always reckoned a sin of a very heinous nature. For St. Paul charges the Ephesians to keep the unity of the SPIRIT in the bond of peace, because there is but one GOD, one faith, one baptism, and one body of CHRIST. The same doctrine is taught in the writings of the first Fathers of the Church, particularly St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian; and schism was reputed a great sin by them, even before the Church and State were united, and when the meetings of the schismatics were as much tolerated by the State as the assemblies of the Catholics. For toleration does not alter the nature of schism. Such laws only exempt the persons of schismatics from any penal prosecution. Donatism and Novatianism were counted as damnable schisms, under the reigns of those emperors who granted toleration to them, as under the reigns of those who made laws against them.—Nelson.

SCHOOLS. The word was anciently of larger application than at present, and signified places of instruction not only for children, but for those of more advanced age. It was applied generally to what are now called universities. Thus Shakspeare, in Hamlet, speaks of being at school at Wittenberg, that is, at the university. The places in the universities where exercises for degrees are performed, and lectures read, are still called schools, both in England, and at least in the older universities of Europe: and academical degrees were often called degrees of school.

But taking the term in its usual modern acceptation, as places of education for the young, it may be convenient in these days to have a concise history of schools. The following, therefore, is given from Dr. Burn and other writers of authority:—

The determinations in the courts of law relative to schools at the time Dr. Burn wrote, had not been delivered with that precision which was usual in other cases. And indeed, excepting in an instance or two in the court of Chancery, the general law concerning schools did not seem to have been considered as yet upon full and solemn arguments. And, therefore, he says, a liberty of animadversion is taken in some of the following particulars, which would not be allowable in matters which had been finally adjudged and settled.

By the 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 37. Whereas it would be a great hinderance to learning and other good and charitable works, if persons well inclined may not be permitted to found schools for the encouragement of learning or to augment the revenues of schools already founded, it shall be lawful for the king to grant licences to aliene, and to purchase and hold in mortmain.

But, by the 9 Geo. II. c. 36, after June 24, 1736, no manors, lands, tenements, rents, advowsons, or other hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, nor any sum of money, goods, chattels, stocks in the public funds, securities for money, or any other personal estate whatsoever, to be laid out or disposed of in the purchase of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, shall be given or any ways conveyed or settled, (unless it be bona fide for full and valuable consideration,) to or upon any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, or otherwise, for any estate or interest whatsoever, or any ways charged or encumbered, in trust or for the benefit of any charitable uses whatsoever; unless such appointment of lands, or of money, or other personal estate, (other than stocks in the public funds,) be made by deed indented, sealed, and delivered in the presence of two witnesses, twelve calendar months at least before the death of the donor, and be enrolled in Chancery within six calendar months next after the execution thereof; and unless such stock in the public funds be transferred in the public books usually kept for the transfer of stocks, six calendar months at least before the death of the donor; and unless the same be made to take effect in possession for the charitable use intended, immediately from the making thereof, and be without power of revocation. And any assurance otherwise made shall be void.

By Canon 77. “No man shall teach either in public school or private house, but such as shall be allowed by the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place, under his hand and seal; being found meet, as well for his learning and dexterity in teaching, as for sober and honest conversation, and also for right understanding of GOD’S true religion; and also except he first subscribe simply to the first and third articles in the 36th canon, concerning the king’s supremacy, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and to the two first clauses of the second article, concerning the Book of Common Prayer, viz. that it containeth nothing contrary to the word of GOD, and may lawfully be used.”

And in the case of Cory and Pepper, T. 30 Car. II., a consultation was granted in the court of King’s Bench, against one who taught without licence in contempt of the canons; and (the reporter says) the reason given by the court was, that the canons of 1603 are good by the statute of the 25 Hen. VIII., so long as they do not impugn the common law, or the prerogative royal.—2 Lev. 222. Gibs. 995.

But this is unchronological and absurd; and as the office of a schoolmaster is a lay-office (for where it is supplied by a clergyman, that is only accidental, and not of any necessity at all); it is clear enough, that the canon by its own strength in this case is not obligatory.

Therefore we must seek out some other foundation of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and there are many quotations for this purpose fetched out of the ancient canon law, (Gibs. 1099,) which, although perhaps not perfectly decisive, yet it must be owned they bear that way.

The argument in Cox’s case seems to contain the substance of what has been alleged on both sides in this matter, and concludes in favour of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; which was thus: M. 1700. In the Chancery: Cox was libelled against in the spiritual court at Exeter, for teaching school without licence from the bishop: And on motion before the lord chancellor an order was made, that cause should be shown why a prohibition should not go, and that in the mean time all things should stay. On showing cause, it was moved to discharge the said order, alleging, that before the Reformation this was certainly of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Wright, lord keeper, decided that both courts may have a concurrent jurisdiction; and a crime may be punishable both in the one and in the other: The canons of a convocation do not bind the laity without an act of parliament: But I always was, and still am of opinion, that keeping of school is by the old laws of England of ecclesiastical cognizance: and therefore let the order for a prohibition be discharged. Whereupon it was moved, that this libel was for teaching school generally, without showing what kind of school; and the court Christian could not have jurisdiction of writing schools, reading schools, dancing schools, or such like; to which the lord keeper assented; and thereupon granted a prohibition as to the teaching of all schools, except grammar schools, which he thought to be of ecclesiastical cognizance.

By act of parliament the case stands thus: By the 23 Eliz. c. 1. If any person or persons, body politic or corporate, shall keep or maintain any schoolmaster which shall not repair to some church, chapel, or usual place of common prayer, or be allowed by the bishop or ordinary of the diocese where such schoolmaster shall be so kept, he shall, upon conviction in the courts at Westminster, or at the assizes, or quarter sessions of the peace, forfeit for every month so keeping him £10; one-third to the king, one-third to the poor, and one-third to him that shall sue: and such schoolmaster or teacher, presuming to teach contrary to this act, and being thereof lawfully convict, shall be disabled to be a teacher of youth, and suffer imprisonment without bail or mainprise for one year.

By the 1 Jac. I. c. 4, s. 9. No person shall keep any school, or be a schoolmaster, out of any of the universities or colleges of this realm, except it be in some public or free grammar school, or in some such nobleman’s or gentleman’s house as are not recusants, or where the same schoolmaster shall be specially licensed thereunto by the archbishop, bishop, or guardian of the spiritualities of that diocese; upon pain that, as well the schoolmaster, as also the party that shall retain or maintain any such schoolmaster, shall forfeit each of them for every day so wittingly offending 40_s._; half to the king, and half to him that shall sue.

And by the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4. Every schoolmaster keeping any public or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in any house or private family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall, before his admission, subscribe the declaration following, viz. “I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established.” Which shall be subscribed before the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese; on pain that every person so failing in such subscription shall forfeit his school, and be utterly disabled, and ipso facto deprived of the same, and the said school shall be void as if such person so failing were naturally dead.

And if any schoolmaster, or other person, instructing or teaching youth in any private house or family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall instruct or teach any youth as a tutor or schoolmaster before licence obtained from the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese, according to the laws and statutes of this realm, (for which he shall pay 12_d._ only,) and before such subscription as aforesaid, he shall for the first offence suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail; and, for every second and other such offence, shall suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail, and also forfeit to the king the sum of £5. (S. 8, 9, 10, 1.)

M. 9 G. II. The King against the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. A mandamus issued to the bishop to grant a licence to Rushworth a clergyman, who was nominated usher of a free grammar school within his diocese. To which he returned, that a caveat had been entered by some of the principal inhabitants of the place, with articles annexed, accusing him of drunkenness, incontinency, and neglect of preaching and reading prayers; and that the caveat being warned, he was proceeding to inquire into the truth of these things when the mandamus came; and therefore he had suspended the licensing him. And without entering much into the arguments, whether the bishop hath the power of licensing, the court held, that the return should be allowed as a temporary excuse; for though the act of the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, obligeth them only to assent to and subscribe the declaration, yet it adds, “according to the laws and statutes of this realm;” which presupposeth some necessary qualifications, which it is reasonable should be examined into.

And by Canon 137. “Every schoolmaster shall, at the bishop’s first visitation, or at the next visitation after his admission, exhibit his licence, to be by the said bishop either allowed, or (if there be just cause) disallowed and rejected.”

By the 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 4. If any Papist, or person making profession of the Popish religion, shall keep school, or take upon himself the education or government or boarding of youth, he shall be adjudged to perpetual imprisonment in such place within this kingdom as the king by advice of his privy council shall appoint.

In Bales’s case, M. 21 Car. II., it was held, that where the patronage of a school is not in the ordinary, but in feoffees or other patrons, the ordinary cannot put a man out; and a prohibition was granted; the suggestion for which was, that he came in by election, and that it was his freehold.

Upon which Dr. Gibson justly observes, that if this be any bar to his being deprived by ordinary authority, the presentation to a benefice by a lay patron, and the parson’s freehold in that benefice, would be as good a plea against the deprivation of the parson by the like authority. And yet this plea hath been always rejected by the temporal courts. And in one circumstance at least, the being deprived of a school, notwithstanding the notion of a freehold, is more naturally supposed, than deprivation of a benefice; because the licence to a school is only during pleasure, whereas the institution to a benefice is absolute and unlimited.—Gibson, 1110.

By Canon 78. “In what parish church or chapel soever there is a curate, which is a master of arts, or bachelor of arts, or is otherwise well able to teach youth, and will willingly so do, for the better increase of his living, and training up of children in principles of true religion, we will and ordain that a licence to teach youth of the parish where he serveth be granted to none by the ordinary of that place, but only to the said curate: provided always, that this constitution shall not extend to any parish or chapel in country towns, where there is a public school founded already; in which case we think it not meet to allow any to teach grammar, but only him that is allowed for the said public school.”

By Canon 79. “All schoolmasters shall teach in English or Latin, as the children are able to bear, the larger or shorter catechism, heretofore by public authority set forth. And as often as any sermon shall be upon holy and festival days, within the parish where they teach, they shall bring their scholars to the church where such sermons shall be made, and there see them quietly and soberly behave themselves, and shall examine them at times convenient after their return, what they have borne away of such sermons. Upon other days, and at other times, they shall train them up with such sentences of Holy Scriptures, as shall be most expedient to induce them to all godliness. And they shall teach the grammar set forth by King Henry VIII., and continued in the times of King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth of noble memory, and none other. And if any schoolmaster, being licensed, and having subscribed as is aforesaid, shall offend in any of the premises, or either speak, write, or teach against anything whereunto he hath formerly subscribed, if upon admonition by the ordinary he do not amend and reform himself, let him be suspended from teaching school any longer.

“The larger or shorter catechism.”—The shorter is that in the Book of Common Prayer; the larger was a catechism set forth by King Edward VI., which he by his letters patents commanded to be taught in all schools; which was examined, reviewed, and corrected in the convocation of 1562, and published with those improvements in 1570, to be a guide to the younger clergy in the study of divinity, as containing the sum and substance of our reformed religion.—Gibson, 374.

“Shall bring their scholars to the church.”—E. 10 & 11 W. Betcham, and Barnardiston. The chief question was, whether a schoolmaster might be prosecuted in the ecclesiastical court for not bringing his scholars to church, contrary to this canon. And it was the opinion of the court that the schoolmaster, being a layman, was not bound by the canons.

“Grammar.”—Compiled and set forth by William Lily and others specially appointed by his Majesty; in the preface to which book it is declared, that, “as for the diversity of grammars, it is well and profitably taken away by the king’s Majesty’s wisdom; who foreseeing the inconvenience, and favourably providing the remedy, caused one kind of grammar by sundry learned men to be diligently drawn, and so to be set out only; everywhere to be taught for the use of learners, and for avoiding the hurt in changing of schoolmasters.”

By the 43 Eliz. c. 4. Where lands, rents, annuities, goods, or money, given for maintenance of free schools or schools of learning, have been misapplied, and there are no special visitors or governors appointed by the founder, the lord chancellor may award commissions under the great seal, to inquire and take order therein.

Whether a mandamus lieth for restoring a schoolmaster or usher, when in fact they have been deprived by the local visitors, is doubtfully spoken of in the books of common law; and the pleadings upon them seem not to touch the present point, but to turn chiefly upon this, whether they are to be accounted offices of a public or private nature.—Gibson, 1110.

Thus, in the case of The King against the Bailiff’s of Morpeth, a mandamus was granted, to restore a man to the office of under-schoolmaster of a grammar school at Morpeth, founded by King Edward VI. The same being of a public nature, being derived from the Crown.

And the distinction seems to be this: If they shall be deemed of a public nature, as constituted for public government, they shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the king’s courts of common law; but if they be judged matters only of private charity, then they are subject to the rules and statutes which the founder ordains, and to the visitor whom he appoints, and to no other.

In the case of colleges in the universities, whether founded by the king or by any other, it seemeth now to be settled that they are to be considered as private establishments, subject only to the founder and to the visitor whom he appointeth; and it doth not seem easy to discern any difference between schools and colleges in this respect.

H. 1725. Eden and Foster. The free grammar school of Birmingham was founded by King Edward VI., who endowed the said school, and by his letters patent appointed perpetual governors thereof, who were thereby enabled to make laws and ordinances for the better government of the said school, but by the letters patent no express visitor was appointed, and the legal estate of the endowment was vested in these governors. After a commission had issued under the great seal to inspect the management of the governors, and all the exceptions being already heard and overruled, it was now objected to this commission that the king, having appointed governors, had by implication made them visitors likewise: the consequence of which was, that the Crown could not issue a commission to visit or inspect the conduct of these governors. The matter first came on before Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, and afterwards before Lord King, who desired the assistance of Lord Chief Justice Eyre and Lord Chief Baron Gilbert; and accordingly the opinion of the court was now delivered seriatim, that the commission was good. 1. It was laid down as a rule, that where the king is founder, in that case his Majesty and his successors are visitors; but where a private person is founder, there such private person and his heirs are by implication of law visitors. 2. That though this visitatorial power did result to the founder and his heirs, yet the founder might vest or substitute such visitatorial right in any other person or his heirs. 3. They conceived it to be unreasonable, that where governors are appointed, these by construction of law and without any more should be visitors, and should have an absolute power, and remain exempt from being visited themselves. And, therefore, 4. That in those cases where the governors or visitors are said not to be accountable, it must be intended, where such governors have the power of government only, and not where they have the legal estate and are intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits (as in the present case); for it would be of the most pernicious consequence, that any persons intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits, and especially for a charity, though they misemploy never so much these rents and profits, should yet not be accountable for their receipts: this would be such a privilege, as might of itself be a temptation to a breach of trust. 5. That the word governor did not of itself imply visitor; and to make such a construction of a word, against the common and natural meaning of it, and when such a strained construction could not be for the benefit, but rather to the great prejudice, of the charity, would be very unreasonable; besides, it would be making the king’s charter operate to a double intent, which ought not to be. And the commission under the great seal was resolved to be well issued.—2 P. Will. 325.

The following case relates particularly to a church; but is equally applicable to, and far more frequently happeneth in, the case of schools. It is that of Waltham church, H. 1716. Edward Denny, earl of Norwich, being seized by grant from King Edward VI., of the site and demesnes of the dissolved monastery of Waltham Holy Cross, and of the manor of Waltham, and of the patronage of the church of Waltham, and of the right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, it being a donative, the abbey being of royal foundation by his will in 1636, amongst other things the said earl devised a house in Waltham, and a rent-charge of £100 a year, and ten loads of wood to be annually taken out of the forest of Waltham, and his right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, to six trustees and their heirs, of which Sir Robert Atkins was one, in trust for the perpetual maintenance of the minister, to be from time to time nominated by the trustees; and directed that when the trustees were reduced to the number of three, they should choose others. It so fell out, that all the trustees, except Sir Robert Atkins, were dead; and he alone took upon him to enfeoff others to fill up the number; and now the surviving trustees (of the said Sir Robert’s appointment) did nominate Lapthorn to officiate; and the Lady Floyer and Campion, who were owners of the dissolved monastery and of the manor, claimed the right of nomination to the donative, and had nominated Cowper to officiate there, and he was got into possession. The bill was, that Lapthorn might be admitted to officiate there, and to be quieted in the possession, and to have an account of the profits. By the defendants it was amongst other things insisted, that the trustees having neglected to convey over to others, when they were reduced to the number of three, and the legal estate coming only to one single trustee, he had not power to elect others; but by that means the right of nomination resulted back to the grantor, and belonged to the defendants, who had the estate, and stood in his place; or at least the court ought to appoint such trustees as should be thought proper. By Cowper, Lord Chancellor: It is only directory to the trustees, that when reduced to three, they should fill up the number of trustees; and, therefore, although they neglected so to do, that would not extinguish or determine their right; and Sir Robert Atkins, the only surviving trustee, had a better right than any one else could pretend to, and might well convey over to other trustees; it was but what he ought to have done: and it was decreed for the plaintiff with costs, and an account of profits; but the master to allow a reasonable salary to Cowper, whilst he officiated there.

By the 43 Eliz. c. 2, all lands within the parish are to be assessed to the poor rate. But by the annual acts for the land tax it is provided, that the same shall not extend to charge any masters or ushers of any schools, for or in respect of any stipend, wages, rents, or profits, arising or growing due to them, in respect of their said places or employments.

Provided that nothing herein shall extend to discharge any tenant of any the houses or lands belonging to the said schools, who by their leases or other contracts are obliged to pay all rates, taxes, and impositions whatsoever; but that they shall be rated and pay all such rates, taxes, and impositions. And in general it is provided, that all such lands, revenues, or rents, settled to any charitable or pious use, as were assessed in the fourth year of William and Mary, shall be liable to be charged; and that no other lands, tenements or hereditaments, revenues, or rents whatsoever, then settled to any charitable or pious uses as aforesaid, shall be charged.—Burn.

The 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 24, facilitate the granting of land as sites for schools.

From the year 1818, owing to the inquiries of the commissioners appointed to examine into public charities, much was done with respect to schools founded for the benefit of particular localities. At length, in 1840, was passed the statute of 3 t& 4 Vict. c. 77, of which the preamble states the facts as they then stood. It is as follows:—“Whereas there are in England and Wales many endowed schools, both of royal and private foundation, for the education of boys or youth wholly or principally in grammar; and the term ‘grammar’ has been understood by courts of equity as having reference only to the dead languages, that is to say, Greek and Latin: and whereas such education, at the period when such schools, or the greater part, were founded, was supposed, not only to be sufficient to qualify boys or youth for admission to the universities, with a view to the learned professions, but was also necessary for preparing them for the superior trades and mercantile business: and whereas, from the change of times, and other causes, such education, without instruction in other branches of literature and science, is now of less value to those who are entitled to avail themselves of such charitable foundations, whereby such schools have, in many instances, ceased to afford a substantial fulfilment of the intentions of the founders, and the system of education in such grammar schools ought, therefore, to be extended and rendered more generally beneficial, in order to afford such fulfilment; but the patrons, visitors, and governors thereof are generally unable, of their own authority, to establish any other system of education than is expressly provided for by the foundation, and her Majesty’s courts of law and equity are frequently unable to give adequate relief, and in no case but with considerable expense; and whereas, in consequence of changes which have taken place in the population of particular districts, it is necessary, for the purpose aforesaid, that in some cases the advantages of such grammar schools should be extended to boys other than those to whom by the terms of the foundation, or the existing statutes, the same is now limited, and that in other cases some restriction should be imposed, either with reference to the total number to be admitted into the school, or as regards their proficiency at the time when they may demand admission; but in this respect also the said patrons, visitors, and governors, and the courts of equity, are frequently without sufficient authority to make such extension or restriction: and whereas it is expedient that in certain cases grammar schools in the same place should be united.” The act, having recited these circumstances, proceeds to enable her Majesty’s courts of equity, when questions relating to these schools come before them, upon information or petition, or in other proceedings, to establish schemes for the application of the revenues of these schools, having regard to the intention of the founder.

The 24th section, however, provides that nothing in the act shall prejudice the rights of the ordinary; and it also exempts the universities, and the more important public schools, such as Eton, Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, &c., from the operation of the act.

The following succinct and lucid history of public education for the poor in England was given by the bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in his visitation charge of 1847:—

“The system of mutual instruction was first promulgated in this island by Dr. Andrew Bell, exactly half a century from the present time; and that invention, when generally known, drew people’s minds to the subject of schools for the children of the poor; for it was thought, that a method by which one person could inspect the instruction of great numbers would reduce so materially the expense, as to render it no longer hopeless to procure some education for all the inhabitants of the country. In the early years of the nineteenth century, this became the subject of earnest discussion and controversy: and with good reason; for it seemed an obvious consequence, that a machinery by which large numbers could be instructed together, would place in the hands of those who directed that instruction a powerful moral engine to affect the minds of the rising generation. The sectaries were not slow in availing themselves of that engine; and as the religious differences of dissenting parents were, by some, considered a reason against their children using the catechism of the Church, it was maintained by them, that nothing should be taught in those large seminaries except such truths as all Christians, of every complexion and denomination, could agree to accept. Many faithful ministers of the Church felt that they would not be justified before God or man in abdicating one of their most essential functions, that of watching the instruction of their young parishioners, and they recoiled from any proposal of compromising Divine truths; accordingly, they were found strenuously to resist that scheme. With the view of directing the education of the poor in the principles of the National Church, in the year 1812 was established the National Society, an institution which has ever since, by various methods, assisted our schools—by contributions towards their erection—by training teachers—by imparting advice and information—and by maintaining consistency and efficiency in an extensive and rather complicated system. It was, I believe, about thirty years ago that this momentous subject acquired increased importance in the public eye, by the reports of an Education Committee of the House of Commons; and it was then first suggested, that an object of such vast consequence as national education claimed the direct assistance of the State, and that nothing less than aid from the public purse could ever compass the great object of universal instruction. But it was not until the year 1833, that the least assistance was rendered by the government or parliament towards that work. Schools had indeed increased in number, and the public mind had become more and more favourable to the undertaking. But the countenance then first given to popular education by parliament, seems to have originated in political considerations. The population of the country had increased with surprising rapidity; and the vast numbers of poor congregated in towns, particularly in the manufacturing and mining districts, left far behind them all the efforts of private benevolence. At the same time, a fearful increase was observed in the amount of crime; and an examination of the unhappy inmates of prisons proved that a great majority were destitute of every kind of instruction: on the other hand, of the educated part of the poorer classes, very few were discovered in the criminal ranks. Such considerations showed the extreme danger of suffering masses of the people to grow up in ignorance of moral and religious duties, and weighed with parliament to make a grant towards building school rooms. The amount was indeed trifling, compared with the demand, being only £20,000 for England and Wales: but the like sum was repeated for five successive years; and, niggardly as these grants have been generally called, it would be ungrateful not to acknowledge that they did cause a great extent of good throughout the country. The money granted by the treasury being proportioned to the sums advanced by private subscriptions, was effectual in stimulating a large amount of individual charity, and thus called into being a multitude of schools that could not otherwise have had existence. The treasury grants being conveyed through the National Society to Church schools, and through the British and Foreign Society to Dissenting schools, to meet the sums respectively subscribed, the result was, that no less than five-sixths of the whole were allotted to the former; thereby giving a signal proof of the greater zeal in the cause of education which animated Churchmen.

“However, the experience of so many years too plainly showed that the education, if such it could be called, which was given to the poor, was inadequate and unsatisfactory. The system of mutual instruction, though to a certain extent useful when judiciously directed, was found not to be capable of those wonderful effects upon which sanguine minds had calculated. Besides, the early age at which children were generally deprived of school instruction, through the necessities or the cupidity of their parents, perpetually disappointed the hopes of their intellectual proficiency. But, above all, the inadequate qualification of the masters and mistresses of National Schools precluded all prospect of such an education as might elevate the mind. The smallness of their salaries, mainly depending upon precarious subscriptions, almost excluded persons of ability and energy from situations in which those qualities are peculiarly required. Frequently the instructors of the rising generation were persons who had been unsuccessful in their endeavours to obtain a livelihood in other lines of life, who had never turned their attention to the subject of education, and were destitute of the temper, discernment, and love of the profession, which should be combined in a good teacher; and a few weeks’ attendance in the central school (when funds could be found for that purpose) was seldom sufficient to remedy previous inaptitude, or to confer appropriate habits and address. Against these difficulties, the clergy, feeling that upon them the responsibility was cast, long struggled with exemplary zeal and patience; a state of things which still continues. Many are the cases where the whole pecuniary support of a school, beyond the weekly pence of the children, rests with the minister; and whatever is of any value in the teaching, proceeds from himself, or the members of his family.

“From observation of these and other defects in our system, and from a deep sense of the duty of a Christian nation to bring up its people in Christian principles, the National Society promulgated a new and comprehensive plan, the object of which was to establish, in every diocese, training schools for teachers, to combine them with seminaries for the children of the middle classes, (who had before been unaccountably overlooked in our schemes of national education,) and to give permanence to these institutions by connecting them with the cathedral establishments; while it was hoped, that all Churchmen of influence and education might be interested in the care and promotion of the system, by the formation of diocesan boards of education. This important movement took place in the year 1838; and though the results, as far as it has operated, have been beneficial to the cause of education, yet it must be confessed, that the success of the scheme has not equalled the anticipations of its benevolent and enlightened projectors. The pecuniary support which it has met with has not been hitherto sufficient to carry into execution the contemplated objects to the required extent: the effect, however, has, on the whole, been considerable; and the conviction universally produced on the public mind seems to be, that without an appropriate education to be given to the teachers, qualifying them to conduct the moral culture of the youthful mind, all efforts at useful instruction of the poor will be illusory; and that this is an object which must, at all risks and all cost, be kept in view. Nevertheless, no one can fail to see the difficulty which the circumstances of this country cast in the way of any training system: in particular, the acquirements of the pupils being of such a nature as will qualify them for many other employments better remunerated than the mastership of a charity school, it is always to be feared that the best and ablest proficients may be tempted to desert the profession for which they have been educated, to embark in one more lucrative and alluring.

“In the following year the government made an attempt to take into their own hands the guidance of national education. This was to have been effected by various steps, by the establishment of a model school, and of a school for instructors, (or normal school, as it was termed,) under the authority and direction of a Committee of the Privy Council, who were constituted a board of education, with a great latitude of discretion. The former rule of appropriating grants of public money in a just proportion to voluntary donations was to be no longer observed; but a centralized system of government inspection of schools and of the course of instruction was announced. As these measures were proposed by statesmen who had always avowed themselves advocates and supporters of what is termed the British and Foreign system, as they opened a door to the introduction of a course of education in which religion might have little or no share, and as they were joyfully hailed by that party in the country which avowed hostility to the Church, there could be little doubt on the mind of anybody as to their tendency. Though the operation might have been gradual, yet no long time would have passed before the Church was deposed from one of its most important functions, and that upon which its ulterior usefulness among the poorer classes mainly depends—the early instruction of their youth. This must be regarded as the great crisis of the education question, in which the sentiments of all who had thought or interested themselves in the matter found expression. The government plan was upheld by those who wished for schools in which instruction might be confined, as in those of France, to secular knowledge—as well as by those who advocated the notion of dividing religious instruction into general and special, and wished to communicate the former in schools, but to exclude the latter, as bringing into collision conflicting opinions. The prevailing judgment of the public was indicated by petitions to parliament, of which about 3000 were against the proposals, and about 100 in their favour. The measure was only carried in the House of Commons, with all the weight of ministerial influence, by a majority of two, while in the Upper House resolutions condemnatory of it were voted by a majority of no less than 111; and an address was carried up to the throne by the whole House, praying her Majesty not to enforce a system which interfered with the province of the Established Church. It rarely happens that upon any question the preponderance of public opinion throughout all classes has been expressed so decidedly, and at the same time so deliberately. Its first result was of a very remarkable character. The distinguished and eloquent statesman, the founder of the British and Foreign School Society, who had signalized the whole of his public life by a zealous and energetic advocacy of the comprehensive system of education, was so convinced of the hopelessness of overcoming the prevalent feeling in favour of the Church as general instructress, that he published a pamphlet, to persuade those who had co-operated with him for thirty years in that course to acquiesce in the decision which public opinion, as well as parliament, had pronounced against them; and urged, with his usual force of argument, that they would best show themselves the sincere and patriotic advocates for the diffusion of knowledge, by agreeing at once to a ‘Church Education Bill.’

“It is gratifying to contemplate the moderation with which the Church used the triumph of opinion declared in her favour, and the substantial proof which she gave of the sincerity of her zeal for intellectual improvement. The deplorable ignorance in which multitudes were suffered to grow up in the populous manufacturing and mining districts, and the inadequacy of any voluntary efforts in their favour, had been used as the great argument for devolving all care of them and their instruction upon the State; accordingly, a special fund was immediately subscribed, and intrusted to the National Society, for maintaining schools in those populous districts, amounting to not less than £150,000, five times the sum voted at the time by parliament for the whole kingdom. A disposition was likewise shown to meet, as far as possible, the views of the government in regard to schools whose erection had been aided by parliamentary grants; it being agreed that they should be open to government inspection, on condition that the inspectors of Church schools were to be persons recommended by the archbishops of the respective provinces.

“During the last seven years the system of inspection has been in progress, and, I think, with singular benefit to the cause of education. The examination of a number of schools by able and intelligent observers (and such qualifications the inspectors eminently display) has thrown much light upon a subject in which there must ever be some practical difficulty. Through a comparison of different cases, it becomes evident what methods are most successful in practice; and it can be satisfactorily ascertained in which instances failure is attributable to the plan, and in which to the execution. The inspectors’ reports, comprising a mine of valuable information, will be found in the volumes of the Committee of Council, which also communicate a variety of plans for schoolrooms and school-houses, directions useful for building and conducting schools, improvements introduced from time to time, and a large body of economics conducive to the improvement of humble education. Among all the truths which have been established upon this interesting subject, the most important is, that the instructor should himself have received early training, not merely that he may be qualified to conduct the mechanical process of a school, but may have such acquaintance with the tempers and characters of children, and such skill in managing them, as experience alone can confer. Above all, it is necessary that he should himself be thoroughly imbued with religious principles, without which there is little chance of his imparting that tone of Christian discipline which should pervade the whole of his intercourse with the scholars. That there may not be wanting a supply of fit and able persons to fill these stations, it is particularly desirable that, whenever a boy is distinguished in a national school for ability and good disposition, he should be retained beyond the usual age, both for his own improvement and for the service of the school; and if means can be found to constitute him a stipendiary monitor, the real benefits of the monitorial system will be perceived, without the objections to which it has been found liable. Such a pupil may have further instruction after school hours, and, if his manners and conduct correspond with his ability, may become an apprentice teacher; he will then be qualified as a recipient of the higher instruction communicated at a training establishment for schoolmasters, or, as it is the fashion to call it, a normal school.”

Mr. Johnston, in his “England in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century,” published 1851, after quoting this, proceeds to say, “The hopes which the good bishop entertained of a continued cordiality of co-operation between the National Society, as the organ of the Church, and the Committee of Privy Council as the educational department of the civil government, have not been quite fulfilled. The parliamentary grants of public money in support of education were indeed increased, having been, from 1839 to 1842, £30,000 a-year; in 1843 and 1844, £40,000 a-year; in 1845, £75,000; in 1846, £100,000; and in 1847 and 1848, £125,000 a-year; but in 1846 the Committee of Privy Council began to insist upon certain conditions of management in the Church of England schools assisted with public money, which led to a correspondence with the National Society, extending over a period of three years, and terminating in a resolution of the Society not to recommend to promoters of schools to accept the management clauses insisted upon by the Committee of Privy Council. The correspondence on both sides is distinguished by considerable caution and much courtesy. In several points the Committee of Privy Council readily conceded what was required by the National Society, but in the main points of imposing more restriction upon the promoters of schools than the National Society thought desirable, and in refusing to allow the bishop to exercise authority over the Church of England schools, except in what concerned directly the religious instruction of the pupils, the Committee of Privy Council continued to oppose the views of the Church. The actual and officially recognised difference between the state of affairs as regards this subject, at the time the Bishop of Gloucester delivered his charge and at the present time (1850), is this,—that whereas the Committee of the National Society in 1846 and 1847 agreed with the Committee of Privy Council jointly to recommend certain management clauses to promoters of schools, they now have declined to recommend such clauses, and this they have done on the following grounds:—In times past the Committee of the National Society never interfered with the constitution of schools, but left them to be determined by the promoters. It was found, however, that in very numerous instances the constitution chosen by the promoters was defective. At the time mentioned the Committee of Privy Council asked the National Society to recommend certain clauses, to which the Society assented, with this proviso—that promoters of schools should have the same liberty of choice as had hitherto been conceded to them by the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society. The Society, however, found, in the beginning of 1848, that by recommendation the Committee of Privy Council meant enforcement, and that no new school would be aided by the Committee of Privy Council in the building, which would not receive one of the four management clauses; and not only that, but the one particular clause out of the four which the Committee of Privy Council thought best for that particular school. Upon this the Committee of the National Society remonstrated against what they considered an infringement of reasonable liberty, and they also remarked upon several points in the clauses which in their opinion would be made better by alteration. On most of these points the Committee of Privy Council gave way; but on the question of liberty, that Committee would not give way, and they still continue to enforce one of these management clauses where public money is granted, and that one selected by themselves. Therefore the Committee of the National Society declined to continue to recommend the clauses; but they have not ceased to give the same proportion of aid out of their funds to all cases of school building, whether aided by the Committee of Council or not; and therefore whether adopting one of the management clauses or not. The actual and formal breach between the National Society and the Committee of Privy Council has not gone beyond this. In respect to general matters the same interchange of communication as heretofore goes on between the government department and the National Society. The training institutions supported by the Society are, as in times past, examined by her Majesty’s inspectors of schools, and certificates of merit awarded to the pupils therein. Payments are also made to these institutions out of the parliamentary grant in pursuance of such certificates, and the annual grant of £1000 towards the support of those institutions is still paid by the Committee of Council.”

Thus matters stood until 1852, when the sum granted by parliament to be applied in aid of schools by the Committee of Council was £160,000 for the year. At the same time the lords of the council made an alteration in the minutes governing the appropriation of aid to the building or enlarging of Church of England schools; leaving it optional with founders who petitioned for aid, either to take it upon such conditions as previously existed, or upon certain new conditions. These new conditions give the clergyman of the parish or district more direct authority over the religious and moral instruction of the pupils than was expressed in the previous conditions, and they enable him to prohibit, (on religious or moral grounds,) the use of any book, and to suspend the teacher from his functions, pending the decision of the question by the bishop of the diocese, whose decision is to be final.

The new minutes of 1852 were not maintained by the succeeding government. The grant for public education in 1853 was £260,000, and in 1854, £263,000, exclusive of the grant for Ireland. In 1852, by the 15 & 16 Vic. c. 49, the acts referred to in this article relating to sites of schools, were extended ta sites for theological training colleges.

SCHOOLMEN. The title given to a class of learned theologians who flourished in the middle ages. They derive their name from the schools attached to the cathedrals or universities in which they lectured. Some make Lanfranc (William the Conqueror’s archbishop of Canterbury) the first author of scholastic theology; others, the famous Abelard; others, his master Roscelinus; and others again his pupil Peter Lombard. But the most distinguished of the Schoolmen lived in the next century. The scholastic theology was the first attempt at forming a systematic theology. Their first step towards a systematic theology was to collect the sentences of the Fathers; the next step was to harmonize them by reducing them to principles. This could only be done by the application of philosophy to divinity, for philosophy unfolds the principles of reasoning. The Schoolmen, therefore, had recourse to the reigning philosophy, that of Aristotle; and Thomas Aquinas, in his Secunda Secundæ, i. e. the second part of the second division of the “Sum of Theology,” has given the best and clearest exposition of Aristotle’s Ethics to be met with out of Aristotle himself. The great error of the Schoolmen, which has occasioned the ruin of their theology, was this, that, instead of taking the Bible only for their basis, they took the Church for their first authority, and made the Bible only a part of the Church’s teaching.

The doctrine of the Schoolmen, of our deserving grace of congruity, is censured in our 13th Article.

The Schoolmen were:

1. Albertus Magnus, a Dominican friar, born in Suabia. He was educated in the university of Paris, and was Thomas Aquinas’s master. Pope Alexander IV. sent for him to Rome, where he officiated as master of the sacred palace: and Urban IV. forced him to accept of the bishopric of Ratisbon. He died at Cologne, in the year 1280. Albert wrote a great number of books; and, in those days of ignorance, was accused of magic, and of having a brazen head, which gave him answers.

2. Bonaventure, surnamed the Seraphic Doctor, born at Bagnarea, a city of Tuscany, in 1221. He entered into the order of the Minims, in 1233, and followed his studies in the university of Paris, where he afterwards taught divinity, and took his doctor’s degree with St. Thomas Aquinas in 1255. Next year he was elected general of his order; and Gregory X. made him a cardinal in 1272. He assisted at the first sessions of the General Council of Lyons, held in 1279, and died before it was ended. His works are very numerous, and equally replete with piety and learning.

3. Thomas Aquinas, surnamed the Angelical Doctor, was descended of the kings of Sicily and Aragon, and was born in the year 1224, in the castle of Aquin, which is in the territory of Laboré in Italy. After having been educated in the monastery of Mount Cassino, he was sent to Naples, where he studied Humanity and Philosophy. In 1244, he went to Cologne to study under Albertus Magnus. From thence he went to Paris, where he took his doctor’s degree in 1255. He returned into Italy in 1263; and, after having taught Scholastic Divinity in most of the universities of that country, he settled at last at Naples. In 1274, being sent for by Gregory X., to assist in the Council of Lyons, he fell sick on the road, and died in the monastery of Fossanova, near Terracina. Among the great number of his works, which make seventeen volumes in folio, his Summa is the most famous, being a large collection of theological questions.

4. Scotus, or John Duns Scotus, surnamed the Subtile Doctor, was a Scotchman by birth, and came to Paris about the year 1300, where he took his degrees, and taught in that city. He particularly taught the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. From Paris he went to Boulogne, where he died soon after, in 1303. According to the custom of the times, he wrote many philosophical and theological works, in which he valued himself upon maintaining opinions contrary to those of Thomas Aquinas. This gave rise to the opposite sects of the Scotists and Thomists.

5. William Ocham, surnamed the Singular Doctor, was born in a village of that name, in the county of Surrey, in England. He was the head of the sect called the Nominalists. He flourished in the university of Paris, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, and wrote a book concerning the power of the Church and of the State, to defend Philip the Fair against Pope Boniface VIII. He was one of the grand adversaries of Pope John XXII., who excommunicated him for taking part with the anti-pope Peter of Corbario. He ended his days at Munich, the court of the Elector of Bavaria, who had received him kindly.

6. Raymond Lully, descended of an illustrious family in Catalonia, was born in the island of Majorca in 1236. He was of the order of the Minims, and had acquired a great knowledge of the Oriental languages. He invented a new method of reasoning, but could not obtain leave from Honorius IV. to teach it at Rome. Then he resolved to execute the design he had long formed of endeavouring the conversion of the Mohammedans. Having gone to Tunis, he had a conference with the Saracens, in which he run the risk of his life, and escaped only upon condition he would go out of Africa. He came to Naples, where he taught his method till the year 1290. At Genoa he wrote several books. From thence he went to Paris, where he taught his art. After several travels and adventures, he returned to Majorca, from whence he went over into Africa, where he was imprisoned by the Saracens, and so ill-treated, that he died of his wounds. He had found out the secret of making a jargon proper to discourse of everything, without learning anything in particular, by ranging certain general terms under different classes.

7. Durandus, surnamed the Most resolving Doctor, was of St. Pourcain, a village in the diocese of Clermont, in Auvergne, and flourished in the university of Paris from 1313 to 1318, in which year he was named by the pope, bishop of Puy, from whence he was transferred to the bishopric of Meaux, which he governed to the time of his death.

8. To these may be added, Giles, archbishop of Bourges, surnamed the Doctor who had a good Foundation; Peter Aureolus, archbishop of Aix, styled the Eloquent Doctor; Augustin Triumphus, of Ancona, who wrote the Milleloquium of St. Augustin; Albert of Padua; Francis Mairon, of Digne in Provence; Robert Holkot, an English divine; Thomas Bradwardin, an Englishman, surnamed the Profound Doctor, author of a treatise de Causa Dei against Pelagius; and Gregory of Rimini, author of two commentaries on the First and Second Books of Sentences.

SCOTLAND. (See Church in Scotland.)

SCREEN. Any separation of one part of a church from another, generally of light construction, tabernacle work, open arcading, or wood tracery. The screens separating side chapels from the chancel, nave, or transept, are usually called parcloses. (See Rood-loft and Reredos.)

SCRIPTURE. (See Bible.) “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

“Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua. Judges. Ruth. The First Book of Samuel. The Second Book of Samuel. The First Book of Kings. The Second Book of Kings. The First Book of Chronicles. The Second Book of Chronicles. The First Book of Esdras. The Second Book of Esdras. The Book of Esther. The Book of Job. The Psalms. The Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, or Preacher. Cantica, or Songs of Solomon. Four Prophets the Greater. Twelve Prophets the Less.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us