(a) _Kirk Session_ consists of the minister of the parish and the
"ruling elders" (who are elected by the session). It has cognizance of
scandalous offences by laymen and punishes them by deprivation of
religious privileges. It does not judge ministers (Brodie-Innes,
_Comparative Principles of the Laws of England and Scotland_, 1903, p.
144).
(b) The _Presbytery_ has jurisdiction, partly appellate and partly
original, over a number of parishes. There are now eighty-four
presbyteries. These courts consist of every parochial minister or
professor of divinity of any university within the limits, and of an
elder commissioned from every kirk session. A minister is elected to
preside as moderator. These courts judge ministers in first instance for
scandalous conduct. As civil courts they judge in first instance all
questions connected with glebes and the erection and repair of churches
and manses. They regulate matters concerning public worship and
ordinances, and have appellate jurisdiction from the kirk session.
(c) The _Provincial Synod_ consists of a union of three or more
presbyteries with the same members. There are now sixteen. They meet
twice a year to hear appeals from presbyteries. No appeal can go direct
to the General Assembly, _omisso medio_, unless the presbytery have so
expressly directed, or unless there be no meeting of synod after the
decision of the presbytery before the meeting of General Assembly.
(d) The _General Assembly_ is the supreme ecclesiastical court of this
system. It meets annually. The king's "lord high commissioner" attends
the sittings; but does not intervene or take part in the court's
decisions. The court consists of ministers and elders, elected from the
presbyteries in specified proportions, and of commissioners from the
four universities, the city of Edinburgh and the royal burghs. The
Presbyterian Church in India sends one minister and one elder. The whole
Assembly consists of 371 ministers and 333 elders. The jurisdiction is
entirely appellate. The Assembly appoints a commission to exercise some
of its functions during the intervals of its session. To this commission
may be referred the cognizance of particular matters.
Questions of _patronage_ now (by 37 & 38 Vict. c. 82) belong to the
Church courts; but not questions of _lapse_ or _stipend_. Seats, seat
rents, pews, the union and disjunction of parishes and formation of
district parishes are of secular jurisdiction. Questions of tithes (or
"teinds") and ministers' stipends were referred to commissioners by acts
of the Scots parliaments beginning in 1607. The commissioners of teinds
became a species of ecclesiastical court. By Scots act of 1707, c. 9,
their powers were transferred to the judges of the court of session, who
now constitute a "teind court" (Brodie-Innes, op. cit. pp. 138, 139).
Matrimonial matters and those relating to wills and succession (called
in Scotland "consistorial" causes) were in 1563 taken from the old
bishops' courts and given to "commissaries" appointed by the crown with
an appeal to the court of session, which by act 1609, c. 6, was declared
the king's great consistory. They have remained matters of secular
jurisdiction.
The Scots ecclesiastical courts are entitled to the assistance of the
secular courts to carry out their jurisdiction by "due assistance."
Within the limits of their jurisdiction they are supreme. But if a court
go outside its jurisdiction, or refuse to exercise powers conferred on
it by law, the civil court may "reduce" (i.e. set aside) the sentence
and award damages to the party aggrieved.
Protestant continental European states.
With the Reformation in the 16th century, Church courts properly
speaking disappeared from the non-episcopal religious communities which
were established in Holland, in the Protestant states of Switzerland and
of Germany, and in the then non-episcopal countries of Denmark and
Norway.
Discipline over ministers and other office-bearers was exercised by
administrative methods in the form of trials before consistories or
synods. To this extent ecclesiastical jurisdiction is still exercised in
these countries. Consistories and synods have exercised discipline of a
penitential kind over their lay members; but in later times their
censures have generally ceased to carry temporal consequences.
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction on the civil side for the trial of causes
soon disappeared. Heresy has been treated as a crime to be tried in and
punished by the ordinary courts of the country, as in the cases of
Servetus (q.v.) and Grotius (q.v.).
For the episcopal churches of Sweden and Finland the first constitution
or "Church order" was formed in 1571. It provided for the visitation of
the clergy by the bishop, and for the power of the clergy to exclude
their lay folk from the Holy Communion, subject to appeal to the bishop.
Both minor and major excommunication had been in use, and for a long
time public penance was required. The procedure underwent great
modification in 1686; but public penance was not taken away till 1855,
and then confession to and absolution by the priest in the presence of
witnesses was still required. Civil jurisdiction in causes appears to
have been given up early (Cornelius, _Svenska Kirkaus Historia_, Upsala,
1875, pp. 146, 186, 189, 285).
Roman Catholic countries.
Over the rest of western continental Europe and in the colonies of
Spain, Portugal and France, ecclesiastical jurisdiction remained
generally in the state which we have already described till near the end
of the 18th century. The council of Trent took away the jurisdiction of
archdeacons in marriage questions. The testamentary jurisdiction
disappeared (as already stated) in France. Disputed cases of contract
were more often tried in the secular courts. Recourse to the secular
prince by way of _appel comme d'abus_, or otherwise, became more
frequent and met with greater encouragement. Kings began to insist upon
trying ecclesiastics for treason or other political crimes in secular
courts. So under the advice of his minister (the marquis of Pombal),
King Joseph of Portugal in 1759-1760 claimed that the pope should give
him permission to try in all cases clerics accused of treason, and was
not content with the limited permission given to try and execute, if
guilty, the Jesuits then accused of conspiring his death (_Life of
Pombal_, by Count da Carnota, 1871, pp. 128, 141). But there was no
sudden change in the position of the courts Christian till the French
Revolution.
In France a law of the Revolution (September 1790) purported to suppress
all ecclesiastical jurisdictions. On the re-establishing of the Catholic
religion on the basis of the new Concordat, promulgated 18 Germinal,
year X. (April 8, 1802), no express provision was made for
ecclesiastical jurisdictions; but several bishops did create new
ecclesiastical tribunals, "officialities" (Migne, _Dict. de droit
canon._, s.v.). The government in some cases recognized these tribunals
as capable of judging ecclesiastical causes (Migne, _ubi sup._). In 1810
the diocesan official of Paris entertained the cause between Napoleon
and Josephine, and pronounced a decree of nullity (Migne, _ubi sup._
s.v. "Causes"). Such litigation as still continued before the spiritual
forum was, however, confined (save in the case of the matrimonial
questions of princes) to the professional conduct of the clergy.
Such neighbouring countries as were conquered by France or
revolutionized after her pattern took the same course of suppressing
their ecclesiastical jurisdictions. After 1814, some of these
jurisdictions were revived. But the matter is now determined for all
countries which have adopted codes, whether after the pattern of the
Code Napoleon or otherwise. These countries have created a hierarchy of
temporal courts competent to deal with every matter of which law takes
cognizance, and a penal code which embraces and deals with all crimes or
delicts which the state recognizes as offences. Hence, even in countries
where the Roman Church is established, such as Belgium, Italy, the
Catholic states of Germany and cantons of Switzerland, most of the Latin
republics of America, and the province of Quebec, and _a fortiori_ where
this Church is not established, there is now no discipline over the
laity, except penitential, and no jurisdiction exercised in civil suits,
except possibly the matrimonial questions of princes (of which there was
an example in the case of the reigning prince of Monaco). In Spain
causes of nullity and divorce _a thoro_, in Portugal causes of nullity
between Catholics, are still for the court Christian. In Peru, the old
ecclesiastical matrimonial jurisdiction substantially remains (Lehr, _Le
Mariage dans les principaux pays_, 1899, arts. 362, 797, 772, 781).
Otherwise these three countries are Code countries. In Austria, the
ancient ecclesiastical jurisdiction was taken away by various acts of
legislation from 1781 to 1856; even voluntary jurisdiction as to
dispensations. The Concordat of 1856 and consequent legislation restored
matrimonial jurisdiction to the courts Christian over marriages between
Roman Catholics. In 1868 this was taken away. The Austrian bishops,
however, maintain their tribunals for spiritual purposes, and insist
that such things as divorce _a vinculo_ must be granted by their
authority (Aichner, _Compendium juris ecclesiastici_, pp. 551-553).
By consent and submission of her members, the Roman Church decides _in
foro conscientiae_ questions of marriage, betrothal and legitimacy
everywhere; but no temporal consequences follow except in Spain,
Portugal and Peru.
The position in France was the same as that in Belgium, Italy, &c., till
1906, when the Church ceased to be established. The only Latin countries
in which conflict has not arisen appear to be the principality of
Andorra and the republic of San Marino (Giron y Areas, _Situacion
juridica de la Iglesia Catolica_, Madrid, 1905, p. 173 et seq.).
Even as to the discipline of the Roman clergy it is only in certain
limited cases that one can speak of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Bishops
and beneficed incumbents (_cures_) must be regularly tried; and where
the Church is established the canonical courts are recognized. But the
majority of parishes are served by mere _desservants_ or _vicaires_, who
have no rights and can be recalled and dismissed by mere administrative
order without trial (Migne, _ubi sup._ s.v. "Inamovibilite,"
"Desservants").
The Napoleonic legislation re-established the _appel comme d'abus_
("_Articles organiques_," art. 6). The recourse was now to the council
of state (see Migne, _ubi supra_, "Officialite"). But the revocation of
a _desservant_, and the forbidding him the execution of his ministry in
the diocese, was not a case in which the council of state would
interfere (Migne, _ubi sup._ "Appel comme d'abus," "Conseil d'etat").
Jurisdiction in Anglican communion.
In those provinces of the Anglican communion where the Church is not
established by the state, the tendency is not to attempt any external
discipline over the laity; but on the other hand to exercise consensual
jurisdiction over the clergy and office-bearers through courts nearly
modelled on the old canonical patterns.
Modern jurisdiction of Church of Rome.
In the Roman communion, on the other hand, both where the Church is
established and where it is not, the tendency is to reduce the status of
_cure_ to that of _desservant_, and to deal with all members of the
priestly or lower orders by administrative methods. This practice
obtains in all missionary countries, e.g. Ireland and also in Belgium
(S.B. Smith, _Elements of Ecclesiastical Law_, New York, i. 197 et seq.;
p. 403 et seq.; Tauber, _Manuale juris canonici_, Sabariae, 1904, p.
277). In the United States, the 3rd plenary council of Baltimore in 1884
provided that one rector out of ten should be irremovable (Smith, op.
cit. i. 197, 419). In England there are few Roman "benefices" (E.
Taunton, _Law of the Church_, London, 1906, s.v. "Benefice"). A
_desservant_ has an informal appeal, by way of recourse, to the
metropolitan and ultimately to the pope (Smith, op. cit. p. 201). The
bishop's "official" is now universally called his vicar-general (except
in France, where sometimes an _official_ is appointed _eo nomine_), and
generally exercises both voluntary and contentious jurisdiction (op.
cit. i. 377). As of old, he must be at least tonsured and without a wife
living. At the Vatican Council, a desire was expressed that he should be
a priest (ib.). He should be a doctor in theology or a licentiate in
canon law (ib. p. 378). Whether a bishop is bound to appoint a
vicar-general is still disputed (ib. p. 380; cf. _supra_; _contra_,
Bouix, _Inst. Juris Canon. De Judic._ i. 405). In 1831 the pope enacted
that in all the dioceses of the then Pontifical States, the court of
first instance for the criminal causes of ecclesiastics should consist
of the ordinary and four other judges. In the diocese of Rome, the
court of the cardinal vicar-general consists of such vicar-general and
four other prelates (Smith, _ubi supra_). In the Roman communion in
England and the United States, there are commissions of investigation
appointed to hear in first instance the criminal causes of clerks. They
consist of five, or at least three, priests nominated by the bishop in
and with the advice of the diocesan synod. In the United States, since
1884, the bishop presides on these commissions. They report their
opinions to the bishop, who passes final sentence (ib. ii. 129-131).
"Exemptions" now include all the regular religious orders, i.e. those
orders which have solemn vows. Over the members of these orders their
superiors have jurisdiction and not the bishop. Otherwise if they live
out of their monastery, or even within that enclosure so notoriously
offend as to cause scandal. In the first case, they may be punished by
the ordinary of the place, acting as delegate of the pope without
special appointment (_Conc. Trid. Sess._ vi. c. 3). In the second case,
the bishop may require the superior to punish within a certain time and
to certify the punishment to him; in default he himself may punish
(_Conc. Trid. Sess._ xxv. c. 14, cf. Smith, op. cit. i. 204-206). So,
regulars having cure of souls are subject to the jurisdiction of the
bishop in matters pertaining thereto (ib. p. 206). The exemption of
regular religious orders may be extended to religious societies without
solemn vows by special concession of the pope, as in the case of the
Passionists and Redemptorists (ib. p. 205; Sanguineti, _Juris ecc.
inst._, Rome, 1800, pp. 393, 394).
Appeal lies, in nearly all cases, to the metropolitan (Smith, op. cit.
pp. 219-223). Metropolitans usually now have a metropolitan tribunal
distinct from their diocesan court (ib. ii. 141), but constructed on the
same lines, with the metropolitan as judge and his vicar-general as
vice-judge. In some "missionary" dioceses, the metropolitan, _qua_
metropolitan, has a separate commission of investigation, to try the
criminal causes of clerks, sentence being passed by himself or his
vicar-general (ib. p. 142).
The next step in the hierarchy, that of "primates" (_supra_), has "in
the present state of the Church" ceased to exist for our purpose
(Sanguineti, op. cit. p. 334), as a result of Tridentine legislation.
The only appellate jurisdiction from the metropolitans is the Roman See.
To it also lies a direct appeal from the court of first instance,
_omisso medio_ (Smith, op. cit. i. 224). The pope's immediate and
original jurisdiction in every diocese is now expressly affirmed by the
Vatican Council (ib. p. 239). That original jurisdiction he reserves
exclusively to himself in _causis majoribus_ (ib. pp. 249-250). These
are (1) causes relating to elections, translations and deprivations of,
and criminal prosecutions against, bishops, and (2) the matrimonial
cases of princes (Taunton, op. cit. s.v. "Cause").
Eastern Church.
In the Eastern Church, the early system of ecclesiastical judicature
long continued. But a sacred character was ascribed to the emperors.
They are "anointed lords like the bishops" (Balsamon, in _Conc. Ancyr.
Can._ xii., representing the view of the 12th and 13th centuries).
Bishops were often deposed by administrative order of the emperor;
synods being expected afterwards to confirm, or rather accept, such
order. The germ of this dealing with a _major causa_ may be found in the
practice of the Arian emperors in the 4th century. The cause of Ignatius
and Photius was dealt with in the 9th century by various synods; those
in the East agreeing with the emperor's view for the time being, while
those in the West acted with the pope. (The details are in Mansi, _Conc.
in locis_, and in Hefele, _Conc. in locis_, more briefly. They are
summarized in Landon, _Manual of Councils_, s.v. "Constantinople,"
"Rome," and in E.S. Foulkes, _Manual of Ecclesiastical History_, s.v.
"Century IX.") Since these transactions patriarchs have been deposed by
the Byzantine emperors; and the Turkish sultans since the 15th century
have assumed to exercise the same prerogative.
The spiritual courts in the East have permanently acquired jurisdiction
in the matrimonial causes of baptized persons; the Mahommedan
governments allowing to Christians a personal law of their own. The
patriarch of Constantinople is enabled to exercise an extensive
criminal jurisdiction over Christians (Neale, _Hist. of the Eastern
Church_, i. 30, 31).
The empire of Russia has in the matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction
partly developed into other forms, partly systematized 4th century and
later Byzantine rules. The provincial system does not exist; or it may
be said that all Russia is one province. An exception should be made in
the case of Georgia, which is governed by an "exarch," with three
suffragans under him. In the remainder of the empire the titles of
metropolitan, save in the case of the metropolitan of all Russia, and of
archbishop, were and are purely honorary, and their holders have merely
a diocesan jurisdiction (see Mouravieff, _History of the Russian
Church_, translated Blackmore, 1842, translator's notes at pp. 370, 390,
416 et seq.). So in Egypt the bishop or "pope" (afterwards patriarch) of
Alexandria was the only true metropolitan (Neale, _History of the
Eastern Church_, Gen. Introd. vol. i. p. 111). The metropolitan of
Russia from the time of the conversion (A.D. 988) settled at Kiev, and
his province was part of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and appeals
lay to Constantinople. Many such appeals were taken, notably in the case
of Leon, bishop of Rostov (Mouravieff, op. cit. p. 38). The
metropolitical see was for a short time transferred to Vladimir and then
finally to Moscow (Mouravieff, chs. iv., v.). After the taking of
Constantinople in 1452, the Russian metropolitans were always chosen and
consecrated in Russia, appeals ceased, and Moscow became _de facto_
autocephalous (Joyce, ubi sup. p. 379; Mouravieff, op. cit. p. 126). The
tsar Theodore in 1587 exercised the power of the Byzantine emperors by
deposing the metropolitan, Dionysius Grammaticus (Mouravieff, p. 125).
In 1587 the see of Moscow was raised to patriarchal rank with the
consent of Constantinople, and the subsequent concurrence of Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem (ib. c. vi.). Moscow became the final court, in
theory, as it had long been in practice. Certain religious houses,
however, had their own final tribunals and were "peculiars," exempt from
any diocesan or patriarchal jurisdiction for at least all causes
relating to Church property (ib. p. 131).
The subject matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Russia during the
whole patriarchal period included matrimonial and testamentary causes,
inheritance and sacrilege, and many questions concerning the Church
domains and Church property, as well as spiritual offences of clergy and
laity (ib.). The bishops had consistorial courts; the patriarchs,
chanceries and consistories (ib.). Bishops were judged in synod (see,
e.g. the case of the archbishop of Polotsk in 1622, ib. p. 179) and only
lawfully judged in synod (ib. p. 215).
Clerks and the dependants of the metropolitan (afterwards the patriarch)
appear to have been immune from secular jurisdiction, except in the case
of crimes against life, from the time of Ivan the Terrible (ib. pp.
180-181). The tsar Michael, in the earlier 17th century, confirmed these
immunities in the case of the clergy of the patriarch's own diocese, but
provided that in country places belonging to his diocese, monasteries,
churches and lands should be judged in secular matters by the Court of
the Great Palace, theoretically held before the tsar himself (ib. p.
181). This tsar limited the "peculiar" monasteries to three, and gave
the patriarch jurisdiction over them (ib.). The next tsar, Alexis,
however, by his code instituted a "Monastery Court," which was a secular
tribunal composed of laymen, to judge in civil suits against spiritual
persons, and in matters arising out of their manors and properties (ib.
p. 193). This court was not in operation during the time when the
patriarch Nikon was also in effect first minister; but upon his decline
exercised its full jurisdiction (ib. p. 216). Nikon was himself tried
for abdicating his see, causing disorder in the realm, oppression and
violence, first before a synod of Moscow composed of his suffragans and
some Greek bishops, and afterwards before another synod in which sat the
patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, the metropolitans of Servia and
Georgia, the archbishops of Sinai and Wallachia, and the metropolitans
of Nice, Amasis, Iconium, Trebizond, Varna and Scio, besides the Russian
bishops. This synod in 1667 deposed Nikon, degraded him from holy
orders, and sentenced him to perpetual penance in a monastery (ib. pp.
220-232). The next tsar, Theodore, suppressed the secular "monastery
court," and directed that all suits against spiritual persons should
proceed only in the patriarchal "court of requests" (ib. p. 264). There
was, however, a species of _appel comme d'abus_. Causes could be evoked
to the tsar himself, "when any partiality of the judges in any affair in
which they themselves were interested was discovered" (ib.).
The old system was swept away by Peter the Great, who settled
ecclesiastical jurisdiction substantially on its present basis. The
patriarchate was abolished and its jurisdiction transferred by a council
at St Petersburg in 1721 to a Holy Governing Synod. The change was
approved by the four patriarchs of the East in 1723 (ib. chs.
xv.-xvii.). Peter permanently transferred to the secular _forum_ the
testamentary jurisdiction and that concerning inheritance, as also
questions of "sacrilege" (ib. p. 264). As the result of a long series of
legislation, beginning with him and ending with Catherine II., all
church property of every kind was transferred to secular administration,
allowances, according to fixed scales, being made for ministers, monks
and fabrics (op. cit. translator's appendix i. p. 413 et seq.). There
remain to the spiritual courts in Russia the purely ecclesiastical
discipline of clerks and laity and matrimonial causes.
The court of first instance is the "consistorial court" of the bishop.
This consists of a small body of ecclesiastics. Its decisions must be
confirmed by the bishop (op. cit. translator's appendix ii. pp.
422-423). In the more important causes, as divorce (i.e. _a vinculo_),
it only gives a provisional decision, which is reported by the bishop,
with his own opinion, for final judgment, to the Most Holy Governing
Synod.
The governing synod is the final court of appeal. It consists of a small
number of bishops and priests nominated by the tsar, and is assisted by
a "procurator," who is a layman, who explains to it the limits of its
jurisdiction and serves as the medium of communication between it and
the autocrat and secular authorities. It deals with the secular crimes
of spiritual persons, if of importance and if not capital (these last
being reserved for the secular forum), and with heresy and schism. It is
the only court which can try bishops or decree divorce. The tsar
formally confirms its judgments; but sometimes reduces penalties in the
exercise of the prerogative of mercy (see Mouravieff, op. cit. ch. xvii.
translator's app. ii.).
The governing synod now sits at St Petersburg, but appoints delegated
commissions, with a portion of its jurisdiction, in Moscow and Georgia.
The latter commission is presided over by the "exarch" (_supra_).
Since the War of Independence, the kingdom of Greece has been
ecclesiastically organized after the model of Russia, as one
autocephalous "province," separated from its old patriarchate of
Constantinople, with an honorary metropolitan and honorary archbishops
(Neale, op. cit. Gen. Introd. vol. i.). The Holy Synod possesses the
metropolitical jurisdiction. It sits at Athens. The metropolitan of
Athens is president, and there are four other members appointed by the
government in annual rotation from the senior bishops. There is attached
to it a government commissioner, with no vote, but affixing his
signature to the synodical judgments (Joyce, op. cit. p. 35).
The subject matter of the jurisdiction of Hellenic courts Christian
seems to be confined to strictly spiritual discipline, mainly in regard
to the professional misconduct of the clergy. Imprisonment may be
inflicted in these last cases (ib.). All matrimonial causes are heard by
the secular tribunals (Lehr, op. cit. sec. 587).
The bishop's consistorial court, consisting of himself and four priests,
has a limited jurisdiction in first instance. Such a court can only
suspend for seven days unless with the sanction of the Holy Synod
(Joyce, op. cit.).
The Holy Synod can only inflict temporary suspension, or imprisonment
for fifteen days, unless with the sanction of the King's ministry.
Deprivation, or imprisonment for more than two months, requires the
approval of the king (ib.). The king or the ministry do not, however,
rehear the cause by way of appeal, but merely restrain severity of
sentence (ib.).
The Church of Cyprus has been autocephalous since at any rate the
oecumenical synod of Ephesus in 431. The episcopate now consists of an
archbishop and three suffragans (Hackett, _Orthodox Church in Cyprus_,
1901, ch. v. _et passim_). The final court is the island synod, which
consists of the archbishop, his suffragans and four dignified priests.
It has original and exclusive cognizance of causes of deposition of
bishops (op. cit. pp. 260, 262).
Each bishop is assisted by at least two officers with judicial or
quasi-judicial powers, the "archimandrite" who adjudicates upon causes
of revenue and the archdeacon who adjudicates on questions between
deacons (op. cit. pp. 272-273). The "exarch" of the archbishop, who is a
dignitary but not a bishop, has a seat in the provincial synod.
In the Balkan States, the system--inherited from Byzantine and Turkish
times--of ecclesiastical jurisdictions prevails, except that they are
now autocephalous, and independent of the patriarch of Constantinople.
Matrimonial causes in Servia are of ecclesiastical cognizance (Lehr, op.
cit. sect. 901).
AUTHORITIES.--St Augustine, _Epistles_; _Codex Theodosianus_, edited
by Th. Mommsen and P.M. Meyer (1905); _Code and Novells of Emperor
Justinian_, ed. J. Gothofredus (1665); T. Balsamon, "In Conc. Ancyr."
in the _Corpus juris canonici_ (1879-1881); "_Hostiensis_" _Super
Decretum_; W. Lyndwood, _Provinciale_ (Oxford, 1679); Sir A.
Fitzherbert, _Natura brevium_ (1534); Sir T. Ridley, _View of the
Civile and Ecclesiastical Law_ (1607); J. Ayliffe, _Parergon juris
ecclesiastici_ (1726); J. Godolphin, _Abridgement of the Laws
Ecclesiastical_ (London, 1687); E. Gibson, _Codex juris ecclesiastici_
(Oxford, 1761); D. Covarruvias, _Opera omnia_ (Antwerp, 1638); Jean
Hardouin, _Concilia_ (1715); J.D. Mansi, _Concilia_ (1759-1798); E.
Stillingfleet, _Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction_ (1704); L.S. le Nain de
Tillemont, _Memoires pour servir a l'histoire ecclesiastique_
(1701-1712); P.T. Durand de Maillane, _Dictionnaire du droit
canonique_ (1761); _Dictionnaire ecclesiastique et canonique_, par une
societe de religieux (Paris, 1765); Z.B. van Espen, _Jus
ecclesiasticum universum_ (Louvain, 1720), _De recursu ad Principem,
observationes in Concilium Lateranense iv._; L. Thomassin, _Vetus et
nova disciplina ecc._ (1705-1706); W. Beveridge, _Synodicon_ (Oxford,
1672); J.A.S. da Carnota, _Life of Pombal_ (1843); J.P. Migne,
_Dictionnaire de droit canon._ (Paris, 1844); R. Keith, _History of
the Scottish Bishops_ (Edinburgh, 1824); P.N. Vives y Cebria, _Usages
y demas derechos de Cataluna_ (1832); C.A. Cornelius, _Svenska Kyrkaus
Historia_ (Upsala, 1875); Mouravieff, _History of the Russian Church_
(trans. Blackmore, 1842); Ffoulkes, _Manual of Ecclesiastical History_
(1851); E.H. Landon, _Manual of Councils of the Church_ (1893); W.H.
Hale, _Precedents in Criminal Cases_ (London, 1847); E.B. Pusey,
_Councils of the Church_ (Oxford, 1857); C.J. von Hefele,
_Conciliengeschichte_ (Freiburg, 1855-1890); M. Gaudry, _Traite de la
legislation des cultes_ (Paris, 1854); W. Stubbs, _Select Charters_
(Oxford, 1895); A.W. Haddan and W. Stubbs, _Councils and
Ecclesiastical Documents_ (Oxford, 1869); A.J. Stephens,
_Ecclesiastical Statutes_ (1845); H.C. Rothery, _Return of Cases
before Delegates_ (1864); J.W. Joyce, _The Sword and the Keys_ (2nd
ed., 1881); _Report of Ecclesiastical Courts Commission_ (1888); P.
Fournier, _Les Officialites au moyen age_ (1880); S.B. Smith,
_Elements of Ecclesiastical Law_ (New York, 1889-1890); S. Sanguineti,
_Juris ecc. inst._ (Rome, 1890); J.F. Stephen, _History of the
Criminal Law of England_ (London, 1883); Pollock and Maitland,
_History of English Law before Edward I._ (1898); F.W. Maitland,
_Roman Canon Law in the Church of England_ (1898); R. Owen, _Canon
Law_ (1884); Sir R.J. Phillimore, _Ecclesiastical Law_ (2nd ed.,
1895); J.W. Brodie-Innes, _Comparative Principles of the Laws of
England and Scotland_ (1903); R.B. Merriman, _Life and Letters of
Thomas Cromwell_ (1902); S. Aichner, _Compendium juris ecclesiast._
(8th ed., Brixen, 1905, especially in regard to Austro-Hungarian
Empire); J. Hackett, _History of the Orthodox Church in Cyprus_
(1901); Tauber, _Manuale juris canonici_ (1906); E.L. Taunton, _Law of
the Church_ (London, 1906); _Report of Royal Commission on
Ecclesiastical Discipline_ (1906). (W. G. F. P.)
ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, in its broadest sense, the sum of the authoritative
rules governing the Christian Church, whether in its internal polity or
in its relations with the secular power. Since there are various
churches, widely differing alike in their principles and practice, it
follows that a like difference exists in their ecclesiastical law, which
is the outcome of their corporate consciousness as modified by their
several relations to the secular authority. At the outset a distinction
must be made between churches which are "established" and those that are
"free." The ecclesiastical laws of the latter are, like the rules of a
private society or club, the concern of the members of the church only,
and come under the purview of the state only in so far as they come in
conflict with the secular law (e.g. polygamy among the Mormons, or
violation of the trust-deeds under which the property of a church is
held). In the case of "established" Churches, on the other hand,
whatever the varying principle on which the system is based, or the
difference in its practical application, the essential conditions are
that the ecclesiastical law is also the law of the land, the decisions
of the church courts being enforced by the civil power. This holds good
both of the Roman Catholic Church, wherever this is recognized as the
"state religion," of the Oriental Churches, whether closely identified
with the state itself (as in Russia), or endowed with powers over
particular nationalities within the state (as in the Ottoman empire),
and of the various Protestant Churches established in Great Britain and
on the continent of Europe.
Writers on the theory of ecclesiastical law, moreover, draw a fundamental
distinction between that of the Church of Rome and that of the Protestant
national or territorial Churches. This distinction is due to the claim of
the Roman Catholic Church to be the _only_ Church, her laws being thus of
universal obligation; whereas the laws of the various established
Protestant Churches are valid--at least so far as legal obligation is
concerned--only within the limits of the countries in which they are
established. The practical effects of this distinction have been, and
still are, of enormous importance. The Roman Catholic Church, even when
recognized as the state religion, is nowhere "established" in the sense
of being identified with the state, but is rather an _imperium in
imperio_ which negotiates on equal terms with the state, the results
being embodied in concordats (q.v.) between the state and the pope as
head of the Church. The concordats are of the nature of truces in the
perennial conflict between the spiritual and secular powers, and imply in
principle no surrender of the claims of the one to those of the other.
Where the Roman Catholic Church is not recognized as a state religion, as
in the United States or in the British Islands, she is in the position of
a "free Church," her jurisdiction is only _in foro conscientiae_, and her
ecclesiastical laws have no validity from the point of view of the state.
On the other hand, the root principle of the ecclesiastical law of the
established Protestant Churches is the rejection of alien jurisdiction
and the assertion of the supremacy of the state. The theory underlying
this may vary. The sovereign may be regarded, as in the case of the
Russian emperor or of the English kings from the Reformation to the
Revolution, as the vicar of God in all causes spiritual as well as
temporal within his realm. As the first fervent belief in the divine
right of kings faded, however, a new basis had to be discovered for a
relation between the spiritual and temporal powers against which Rome had
never ceased to protest. This was found in the so-called "collegial"
theory of Church government (_Kollegialsystem_), which assumed a sort of
tacit concordat between the state and the religious community, by which
the latter vests in the former the right to exercise a certain part of
the _jus in sacra_ properly inherent in the Church (see PUFENDORF,
SAMUEL). This had great and lasting effects on the development of the
theory of Protestant ecclesiastical law on the continent of Europe. In
England, on the other hand, owing to the peculiar character of the
Reformation there and of the Church that was its outcome, no theory of
the ecclesiastical law is conceivable that would be satisfactory at once
to lawyers and to all schools of opinion within the Church. This has been
abundantly proved by the attitude of increasing opposition assumed by the
clergy, under the influence of the Tractarian movement, towards the civil
power in matters ecclesiastical, an attitude impossible to justify on any
accepted theory of the Establishment (see below).
Protestant ecclesiastical law, then, is distinguished from that of the
Roman Catholic Church (1) by being more limited in its scope, (2) by
having for its authoritative source, not the Church only or even mainly,
but the Church in more or less complete union with or subordination to
the State, the latter being considered, equally with the Church, as an
organ of the will of God. The ecclesiastical law of the Church of Rome,
on the other hand, whatever its origin, is now valid only in so far as
it has the sanction of the authority of the Holy See. And here it must
be noted that the "canon law" is not identical with the "ecclesiastical
law" of the Roman Catholic Church. By the canon law is meant,
substantially, the contents of the _Corpus juris canonici_, which have
been largely superseded or added to by, e.g. the canons of the council
of Trent and the Vatican decrees. The long projected codification of the
whole of the ecclesiastical law of the Church of Rome, a work of
gigantic labour, was not taken in hand until the pontificate of Pius X.
(See also CANON LAW and ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION.)
The ecclesiastical law of England is in complete dependence upon the
authority of the state. The Church of England cannot be said, from a
legal point of view, to have a corporate existence or even a
representative assembly. The Convocation of York and the Convocation of
Canterbury are provincial assemblies possessing no legislative or
judicial authority; even such purely ecclesiastical questions as may be
formally commended to their attention by "letters of business" from the
crown can only be finally settled by act of parliament. The
ecclesiastical courts are for the most part officered by laymen, whose
subordination to the archbishops and bishops is purely formal, and the
final court of appeal is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In
like manner changes in the ecclesiastical law are made directly by
parliament in the ordinary course of legislation, and in point of fact a
very large portion of the existing ecclesiastical law consists of acts
of parliament.
The sources of the ecclesiastical law of England are thus described by
Dr. Richard Burn (_The Ecclesiastical Law_, 9th ed., 1842):--"The
ecclesiastical law of England is compounded of these four main
ingredients--the civil law, the canon law, the common law, and the
statute law. And from these, digested in their proper rank and
subordination, to draw out one uniform law of the church is the purport
of this book. When these laws do interfere and cross each other, the
order of preference is this:--'The civil law submitteth to the canon
law; both of these to the common law; and all three to the statute law.
So that from any one or more of these, without all of them together, or
from all of them together without attending to their comparative
obligation, it is not possible to exhibit any distinct prospect of the
English ecclesiastical constitution.' Under the head of statute law Burn
includes 'the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, agreed upon in
Convocation in the year 1562; and in like manner the Rubric of the Book
of Common Prayer, which, being both of them established by Acts of
Parliament, are to be esteemed as part of the statute law.'"
The first principle of the ecclesiastical law in England is the
assertion of the supremacy of the crown, which in the present state of
the constitution means the same thing as the supremacy of parliament.
This principle has been maintained ever since the Reformation. Before
the Reformation the ecclesiastical supremacy of the pope was recognized,
with certain limitations, in England, and the Church itself had some
pretensions to ecclesiastical freedom. The freedom of the Church is, in
fact, one of the standing provisions of those charters on which the
English constitution was based. The first provision of Magna Carta is
_quod ecclesia Anglicana libera sit_. By the various enactments of the
period of the Reformation the whole constitutional position of the
Church, not merely with reference to the pope but with reference to the
state, was definitely fixed. The legislative power of convocation was
held to extend to the clergy only, and even to that extent required the
sanction and assent of the crown. The common law courts controlled the
jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, claiming to have "the
exposition of such statutes or acts of parliament as concern either the
extent of the jurisdiction of these courts or the matters depending
before them. And therefore if these courts either refuse to allow these
acts of parliament, or expound them in any other sense than is truly and
properly the exposition of them, the king's great courts of common law
may prohibit and control them."
The design of constructing a code of ecclesiastical laws was entertained
during the period of the Reformation, but never carried into effect. It
is alluded to in various statutes of the reign of Henry VIII., who
obtained power to appoint a commission to examine the old ecclesiastical
laws, with a view of deciding which ought to be kept and which ought to
be abolished; and in the meantime it was enacted that "such canons,
institutions, ordinances, synodal or provincial or other ecclesiastical
laws or jurisdictions spiritual as be yet accustomed and used here in
the Church of England, which necessarily and conveniently are requisite
to be put in ure and execution for the time, not being repugnant,
contrarient, or derogatory to the laws or statutes of the realm, nor to
the prerogatives of the royal crown of the same, or any of them, shall
be occupied, exercised, and put in ure for the time with this realm" (35
Henry VIII. c. 16, 25 c. 19, 27 c. 8).
The work was actually undertaken and finished in the reign of Edward VI.
by a sub-committee of eight persons, under the name of the _Reformatio
legum ecclesiasticarum_, which, however, never obtained the royal
assent. Although the powers of the 25 Henry VIII. c. 1 were revived by
the 1 Elizabeth c. 1, the scheme was never executed, and the
ecclesiastical laws remained on the footing assigned to them in that
statute--so much of the old ecclesiastical laws might be used as had
been actually in use, and was not repugnant to the laws of the realm.
The statement is, indeed, made by Sir R. Phillimore (_Ecclesiastical
Law_, 2nd ed., 1895) that the "Church of England has at all times,
before and since the Reformation, claimed the right of an independent
Church in an independent kingdom, to be governed by the laws which she
has deemed it expedient to adopt." This position can only be accepted if
it is confined, as the authorities cited for it are confined, to the
resistance of interference from abroad. If it mean that the Church, as
distinguished from the kingdom, has claimed to be governed by laws of
her own making, all that can be said is that the claim has been
singularly unsuccessful. From the time of the Reformation no change has
been made in the law of the Church which has not been made by the king
and parliament, sometimes indirectly, as by confirming the resolutions
of convocation, but for the most part by statute. The list of statutes
cited in Sir R. Phillimore's _Ecclesiastical Law_ fills eleven pages. It
is only by a kind of legal fiction akin to the "collegial" theory
mentioned above, that the Church can be said to have deemed it expedient
to adopt these laws.
The terms on which the Church Establishment of Ireland was abolished, by
the Irish Council Act of 1869, may be mentioned. By sect. 20 the present
ecclesiastical law was made binding on the members for the time being of
the Church, "as if they had mutually contracted and agreed to abide by
and observe the same"; and by section 21 it was enacted that the
ecclesiastical courts should cease after the 1st of January 1871, and
that the ecclesiastical laws of Ireland, except so far as relates to
matrimonial causes and matters, should cease to exist as law. (See also
ENGLAND, CHURCH OF; ESTABLISHMENT; &c.)
AUTHORITIES.--The number of works on ecclesiastical law is very great,
and it must suffice here to mention a few of the more conspicuous
modern ones: Ferdinand Walter, _Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts aller
christlichen Konfessionen_ (14th ed., Bonn, 1871); G. Phillips,
_Kirchenrecht_, Bde. i.-vii. (Regensburg, 1845-1872) incomplete; the
text-book by Cardinal Hergenroether (q.v.); P. Hinschius, _Kirchenrecht
der Katholiken und Protestanten in Deutschland_, 6 Bde. (Berlin, 1869
sqq.), only the Catholic part, a masterly and detailed survey of the
ecclesiastical law, finished; Sir Robert Phillimore, _Eccl. Law of the
Church of England_ (2nd ed., edited by Sir Walter Phillimore, 2 vols.,
London, 1895). For further references see CANON LAW, and the article
"Kirchenrecht" in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopaedie_ (ed. Leipzig,
1901).
ECCLESIASTICUS (abbreviated to _Ecclus._), the alternative title given
in the English Bible to the apocryphal book otherwise called "The Wisdom
of Jesus the son of Sirach." The Latin word _ecclesiasticus_ is,
properly speaking, not a name, but an epithet meaning "churchly," so
that it would serve as a designation of any book which was read in
church or received ecclesiastical sanction, but in practice
Ecclesiasticus has become a by-name for the Wisdom of Sirach. The true
name of the book appears in the authorities in a variety of forms, the
variation affecting both the author's name and the description of his
book. The writer's full name is given in 1. 27 (Heb. text) as "Simeon
the son of Jeshua (i.e. Jesus) the son of Eleazar the son of Sira." In
the Greek text this name appears as "Jesus son of Sirach Eleazar"
(probably a corruption of the Hebrew reading), and the epithet "of
Jerusalem" is added, the translator himself being resident in Egypt. The
whole name is shortened sometimes to "Son of Sira," _Ben Sira_ in
Hebrew, _Bar Sira_ in Aramaic, and sometimes (as in the title prefixed
in the Greek cod. B) to _Sirach_. The work is variously described as the
_Words_ (Heb. text), the _Book_ (Talmud), the _Proverbs_ (Jerome), or
the _Wisdom_ of the son of Sira (or Sirach).
Of the date of the book we have only one certain indication. It was
translated by a person who says that he "came into Egypt in the 38th
year of Euergetes the king" (Ptolemy VII.), i.e. in 132 B.C., and that
he executed the work some time later. The translator believed that the
writer of the original was his own grandfather (or ancestor, [Greek:
pappos]). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the book was
composed not later than the first half of the 2nd century B.C., or (if
we give the looser meaning to [Greek: pappos]) even before the beginning
of the century. Arguments for a pre-Maccabean date may be derived (a)
from the fact that the book contains apparently no reference to the
Maccabean struggles, (b) from the eulogy of the priestly house of Zadok
which fell into disrepute during these wars for independence.
In the Jewish Church Ecclesiasticus hovered on the border of the canon;
in the Christian Church it crossed and recrossed the border. The book
contains much which attracted and also much which repelled Jewish
feeling, and it appears that it was necessary to pronounce against its
canonicity. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100 b) Rabbi Joseph says that it is
forbidden to read (i.e. in the synagogue) the book of ben Sira, and
further that "if our masters had not hidden the book (i.e. declared it
uncanonical), we might interpret the good things which are in it"
(Schechter, _J. Q. Review_, iii. 691-692). In the Christian Church it
was largely used by Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200) and by St
Augustine. The lists of the Hebrew canon, however, given by Melito (c.
A.D. 180) and by Origen (c. A.D. 230) rightly exclude Ecclesiasticus,
and Jerome (c. A.D. 390-400) writes: "Let the Church read these two
volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the instruction of
the people, not for establishing the authority of the dogmas of the
Church" (_Praefatio in libros Salomonis_). In the chief MS. of the
Septuagint, cod. B, Ecclesiasticus comes between Wisdom and Esther, no
distinction being drawn between canonical and uncanonical. In the
Vulgate it immediately precedes Isaiah. The council of Trent declared
this book and the rest of the books reckoned in the Thirty-nine Articles
as apocryphal to be canonical.
The text of the book raises intricate problems which are still far from
solution. The original Hebrew (rediscovered in fragments and published
between 1896 and 1900) has come down to us in a mutilated and corrupt
form. The beginning as far as iii. 7 is lost. There is a gap from xvi.
26 to xxx. 11. There are marginal readings which show that two different
recensions existed once in Hebrew. The Greek version exists in two
forms--(a) that preserved in cod. B and in the other uncial MSS., (b)
that preserved in the cursive codex 248 (Holmes and Parsons). The former
has a somewhat briefer text, the latter agrees more closely with the
Hebrew text. The majority of Greek cursives agree generally with the
Latin Vulgate, and offer the fuller text in a corrupt form. The Syriac
(Peshitta) version is paraphrastic, but on the whole it follows the
Hebrew text. Owing to the mutilation of the Hebrew by the accidents of
time the Greek version retains its place as the chief authority for the
text, and references by chapter and verse are usually made to it.
Bickell and D.S. Margoliouth have supposed that the Hebrew text
preserved in the fragments is not original, but a retranslation from the
Greek or the Syriac or both. This view has not commended itself to the
majority of scholars, but there is at least a residuum of truth in it.
The Hebrew text, as we have it, has a history of progressive corruption
behind it, and its readings can often be emended from the Septuagint,
e.g. xxxvii. 11 (read [Hebrew: umira] for the meaningless [Hebrew:
umerer]). The Hebrew marginal readings occasionally seem to be
translations from the Greek or Syriac, e.g. xxxviii. 4 ([Hebrew: bara
shamaym] for [Greek: ektisen pharmaka]). More frequently, however,
strange readings of the Greek and Syriac are to be explained as
corruptions of our present Hebrew. Substantially our Hebrew must be
pronounced original.
The restoration of a satisfactory text is beyond our hopes. Even before
the Christian era the book existed in two recensions, for we cannot
doubt, after reading the Greek translator's preface, that the translator
amplified and paraphrased the text before him. It is probable that at
least one considerable omission must be laid to his charge, for the hymn
preserved in the Hebrew text after ch. li. 12 is almost certainly
original. Ancient translators allowed themselves much liberty in their
work, and Ecclesiasticus possessed no reputation for canonicity in the
2nd century B.C. to serve as a protection for its text. Much, however,
may be done towards improving two of the recensions which now lie before
us. The incomplete Hebrew text exists in four different MSS., and the
study of the peculiarities of these had already proved fruitful. The
Syriac text, made without doubt from the Hebrew, though often
paraphrastic is often suggestive. The Greek translation, made within a
century or half-century of the writing of the book, must possess great
value for the criticism of the Hebrew text. The work of restoring true
Hebrew readings may proceed with more confidence now that we have
considerable portions of the Hebrew text to serve as a model. For the
restoration of the Greek text we have, besides many Greek MSS., uncial
and cursive, the old Latin, the Syro-Hexaplar, the Armenian, Sahidic and
Ethiopic versions, as well as a considerable number of quotations in the
Greek and Latin Fathers. Each of the two recensions of the Greek must,
however, be separately studied, before any restoration of the original
Greek text can be attempted.
The uncertainty of the text has affected both English versions
unfavourably. The Authorized Version, following the corrupt cursives, is
often wrong. The Revised Version, on the other hand, in following the
uncial MSS. sometimes departs from the Hebrew, while the Authorized
Version with the cursives agrees with it. Thus the Revised Version (with
codd. [Hebrew: alef]*, A, B, C) omits the whole of iii. 19, which the
Authorized Version retains, but for the clause, "Mysteries are revealed
unto the meek," the Authorized Version has the support of the Hebrew,
Syriac and cod. 248. Sometimes both versions go astray in places in
which the Hebrew text recommends itself as original by its vigour; e.g.
in vii. 26, where the Hebrew is,
Hast thou a wife? abominate her not.
Hast thou a hated wife? trust not in her.
Again in ch. xxxviii. the Hebrew text in at least two interesting
passages shows its superiority over the text which underlies both
English versions.
_Hebrew._ _Revised Version (similarly
Authorized Version)._
ver. 1. Acquaint thyself with a Honour a physician according
physician before thou have to thy need of him with the
need of him. honours due unto him.
ver. 15. He that sinneth against his He that sinneth before his
Maker will behave himself Maker, let him fall into the
proudly against a physician. hands of the physician.
In the second instance, while the Hebrew says that the man who rebels
against his Heavenly Benefactor will _a fortiori_ rebel against a human
benefactor, the Greek text gives a cynical turn to the verse, "Let the
man who rebels against his true benefactor be punished through the
tender mercies of a quack." The Hebrew text is probably superior also in
xliv. 1, the opening words of the eulogy of the Fathers: "Let me now
praise favoured men," i.e. men in whom God's grace was shown. The Hebrew
phrase is "men of grace," as in v. 10. The Greek text of v. 1, "famous
men," seems to be nothing but a loose paraphrase, suggested by v. 2,
"The Lord manifested in them great glory."
In character and contents Ecclesiasticus resembles the book of Proverbs.
It consists mainly of maxims which may be described in turn as moral,
utilitarian and secular. Occasionally the author attacks prevalent
religious opinions, e.g. the denial of free-will (xv. 11-20), or the
assertion of God's indifference towards men's actions (xxxv. 12-19).
Occasionally, again, Ben Sira touches the highest themes, and speaks of
the nature of God: "He is All" (xliii. 27); "He is One from everlasting"
(xlii. 21, Heb. text); "The mercy of the Lord is upon all flesh" (xviii.
13). Though the book is imitative and secondary in character it contains
several passages of force and beauty, e.g. ch. ii. (how to fear the
Lord); xv. 11-20 (on free-will); xxiv. 1-22 (the song of wisdom); xlii.
15-25 (praise of the works of the Lord); xliv. 1-15 (the well-known
praise of famous men). Many detached sayings scattered throughout the
book show a depth of insight, or a practical shrewdness, or again a
power of concise speech, which stamps them on the memory. A few examples
out of many may be cited. "Call no man blessed before his death" (xi.
28); "He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled" (xiii. 1); "He hath not
given any man licence to sin" (xv. 20); "Man cherisheth anger against
man; and doth he seek healing from the Lord?" (xxviii. 3); "Mercy is
seasonable ... as clouds of rain" (xxxv. 20); "All things are double one
against another: and he hath made nothing imperfect" (xlii. 24, the
motto of Butler's _Analogy_); "Work your work before the time cometh,
and in his time he will give you your reward" (li. 30). In spite,
however, of the words just quoted it cannot be said that Ben Sira
preaches a hopeful religion. Though he prays, "Renew thy signs, and
repeat thy wonders ... Fill Sion with thy majesty and thy Temple with
thy glory" (xxxvi. 6, 14 [19], Heb. text), he does not look for a
Messiah. Of the resurrection of the dead or of the immortality of the
soul there is no word, not even in xli. 1-4, where the author exhorts
men not to fear death. Like the Psalmist (Ps. lxxxviii. 10, 11) he asks,
"Who shall give praise to the Most High in the grave?" In his maxims of
life he shows a somewhat frigid and narrow mind. He is a pessimist as
regards women; "From a woman was the beginning of sin; and because of
her we all die" (xxv. 24). He does not believe in home-spun wisdom; "How
shall he become wise that holdeth the plough?" (xxxviii. 25). Artificers
are not expected to pray like the wise man; "In the handywork of their
craft is their prayer" (v. 34). Merchants are expected to cheat; "Sin
will thrust itself in between buying and selling" (xxvii. 2).
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The literature of Ecclesiaticus has grown very
considerably since the discovery of the first Hebrew fragment in 1896.
A useful summary of it is found at the end of Israel Levi's article,
"Sirach," in the _Jewish Encyclopedia_. Eberhard Nestle's article in
Hastings's _Dictionary of the Bible_ is important for its
bibliographical information as well as in other respects. A complete
edition of the Hebrew fragments in collotype facsimile was published
jointly by the Oxford and Cambridge Presses in 1901. J.H.A. Hart's
edition of cod. 248 throws much light on some of the problems of this
book. It contains a fresh collation of all the chief authorities
(Heb., Syr., Syr.-Hex., Lat. and Gr.) for the text, together with a
complete textual commentary.
The account given in the _Synopsis_ attributed to Athanasius (Migne,
_P.G._, iv. 375-384) has an interest of its own. The beginning is
given in the Authorized Version as "A prologue made by an uncertain
author." (W. E. B.)
ECGBERT, or ECGBERHT (d. 839), king of the West Saxons, succeeded to the
throne in 802 on the death of Beorhtric. It is said that at an earlier
period in his life he had been driven out for three years by Offa and
Beorhtric. The accession of Ecgbert seems to have brought about an
invasion by AEthelmund, earl of the Hwicce, who was defeated by Weoxtan,
earl of Wiltshire. In 815 Ecgbert ravaged the whole of the territories
of the West Welsh, which probably at this time did not include much more
than Cornwall. The next important occurrence in the reign was the defeat
of Beornwulf of Mercia at a place called Ellandun in 825. After this
victory Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Essex submitted to Wessex; while the
East Anglians, who slew Beornwulf shortly afterwards, acknowledged
Ecgbert as overlord. In 829 the king conquered Mercia, and Northumbria
accepted him as overlord. In 830 he led a successful expedition against
the Welsh. In 836 he was defeated by the Danes, but in 838 he won a
battle against them and their allies the West Welsh at Hingston Down in
Cornwall. Ecgbert died in 839, after a reign of thirty-seven years, and
was succeeded by his son AEthelwulf. A somewhat difficult question has
arisen as to the parentage of Ecgbert. Under the year 825 the Chronicle
states that in his eastern conquests Ecgbert recovered what had been
the rightful property of his kin. The father of Ecgbert was called
Ealhmund, and we find an Ealhmund, king in Kent, mentioned in a charter
dated 784, who is identified with Ecgbert's father in a late addition to
the Chronicle under the date 784. It is possible, however, that the
Chronicle in 825 refers to some claim through Ine of Wessex from whose
brother Ingeld Ecgbert was descended.
See _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, edited by Earle and Plummer (Oxford,
1899); W. de G. Birch, _Cartularium Saxonicum_ (London, 1885-1893).
Also a paper by Sir H.H. Howorth in _Numismatic Chronicle_, third
series, vol. xx. pp. 66-87 (reprinted separately, London, 1900), where
attention is called to the peculiar dating of several of Ecgbert's
charters, and the view is put forward that he remained abroad
considerably later than the date given by the Chronicle for his
accession. On the other hand a charter in Birch, _Cart. Sax._,
purporting to date from 799, contains the curious statement that peace
was made between Coenwulf and Ecgbert in that year.
ECGBERT, or ECGBERHT (d. 766), archbishop of York, was made bishop of
that see in 734 by Ceolwulf, king of Northumbria, succeeding Wilfrid II.
on the latter's resignation. The pall was sent him in 735 and he became
the first northern archbishop after Paulinus. He was the brother of
Eadberht, who ruled Northumbria 737-758. He was the recipient of the
famous letter of Bede, dealing with the evils arising from spurious
monasteries. Ecgberht himself wrote a _Dialogus Ecclesiasticae
Institutionis_, a _Penitentiale_ and a _Pontificale_. He was a
correspondent of St Boniface, who asks him to support his censure of
AEthelbald of Mercia.
See Bede, _Continuatio_, sub. ann. 732, 735, 766, and _Epistola ad
Ecgberctum_ (Plummer, Oxford, 1896); _Chronicle_, sub ann. 734, 735,
738, 766 (Earle and Plummer, Oxford, 1899); Haddan and Stubbs,
_Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents_ (Oxford, 1869-1878), iii.
403-431; _Proceedings of Surtees Society_ (Durham, 1853).
ECGFRITH (d. 685), king of Northumbria, succeeded his father Oswio in
671. He was married to AEthelthryth, daughter of Anna of East Anglia,
who, however, took the veil shortly after Ecgfrith's accession, a step
which possibly led to his long quarrel with Wilfrid archbishop of York.
Ecgfrith married a second wife, Eormenburg, before 678, the year in
which he expelled Wilfrid from his kingdom. Early in his reign he
defeated the Picts who had risen in revolt. Between 671 and 675 Ecgfrith
defeated Wulfhere of Mercia and seized Lindsey. In 679, however, he was
defeated by AEthelred of Mercia, who had married his sister Osthryth, on
the river Trent. Ecgfrith's brother AElfwine was killed in the battle,
and the province of Lindsey was given up when peace was restored at the
intervention of Theodore of Canterbury. In 684 Ecgfrith sent an
expedition to Ireland under his general Berht, which seems to have been
unsuccessful. In 685, against the advice of Cuthbert, he led a force
against the Picts under his cousin Burde, son of Bile, was lured by a
feigned flight into their mountain fastnesses, and slain at
Nechtanesmere (now Dunnichen) in Forfarshire. Bede dates the beginning
of the decline of Northumbria from his death. He was succeeded by his
brother Aldfrith.
See Eddius, _Vita Wilfridi_ (Raine, _Historians of Church of York_,
Rolls, Series, London, 1879-1894), 19, 20, 24, 34, 39, 44; Bede,
_Hist. Eccl._ (Plummer, Oxford, 1896), iii. 24, iv. 5, 12, 13, 18, 19,
21, 26.
ECGONINE, in chemistry, C9H15NO3, a cycloheptane derivative with a
nitrogen bridge. It is obtained by hydrolysing cocaine with acids or
alkalis, and crystallizes with one molecule of water, the crystals
melting at 198 deg. to 199 deg. C. It is laevo-rotatory, and on warming with
alkalis gives iso-ecgonine, which is dextro-rotatory. It is a tertiary
base, and has also the properties of an acid and an alcohol. When boiled
with caustic baryta it gives methylamine. It is the carboxylic acid
corresponding to tropine, for it yields the same products on oxidation,
and by treatment with phosphorus pentachloride is converted into
anhydroecgonine, C9H13NO2, which, when heated to 280 deg. C. with
hydrochloric acid, splits out carbon dioxide and yields tropidine,
C8H13N. Anhydroecgonine melts at 235 deg. C., and has an acid and a basic
character. It is an unsaturated compound, and on oxidation with
potassium permanganate gives succinic acid. It is apparently a tropidine
monocarboxylic acid, for on exhaustive methylation it yields
cycloheptatriene-1.3.5-carboxylic acid-7. Sodium in amyl alcohol
solution reduces it to hydroecgonidine C9H15NO2, while moderate
oxidation by potassium permanganate converts it into _norecgonine_. The
presence of the heptamethylene ring in these compounds is shown by the
production of suberone by the exhaustive methylation, &c., of
hydroecgonidine ethyl ester (see POLYMETHYLENES and TROPINE). The above
compounds may be represented as:
CH2--CH----CH COOH CH2--CH----CH COOH CH2--CH------CH COOH
| | | | | | | | |
| N CH3 CH OH | N CH3 CH | N CH3 CH2
| | | | | || | | |
CH2--CH----CH2 CH2--CH----CH CH2--CH------CH2
Ecgonine Anhydroecgonine Hydroecgonine
ECHEGARAY Y EIZAGUIRRE, JOSE (1833- ), Spanish mathematician,
statesman and dramatist, was born at Madrid in March 1833, and was
educated at the grammar school of Murcia, whence he proceeded to the
Escuela de Caminos at the capital. His exemplary diligence and unusual
mathematical capacity were soon noticed. In 1853 he passed out at the
head of the list of engineers, and, after a brief practical experience
at Almeria and Granada, was appointed professor of pure and applied
mathematics in the school where he had lately been a pupil. His
_Problemas de geometria analitica_ (1865) and _Teorias modernas de la
fisica unidad de las fuerzas materiales_ (1867) are said to be esteemed
by competent judges. He became a member of the Society of Political
Economy, helped to found _La Revista_, and took a prominent part in
propagating Free Trade doctrines in the press and on the platform. He
was clearly marked out for office, and when the popular movement of 1868
overthrew the monarchy, he resigned his post for a place in the
revolutionary cabinet. Between 1867 and 1874 he acted as minister of
education and of finance; upon the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty he
withdrew from politics, and won a new reputation as a dramatist.
As early as 1867 he wrote _La Hija natural_, which was rejected, and
remained unknown till 1877, when it appeared with the title of _Para tal
culpa tal pena_. Another play, _La Ultima Noche_, also written in 1867,
was produced in 1875; but in the latter year Echegaray was already
accepted as the successful author of _El Libro talonario_, played at the
Teatro de Apolo on the 18th of February 1874, under the transparent
pseudonym of Jorge Hayaseca. Later in the same year Echegaray won a
popular triumph with _La Esposa del vengador_, in which the good and bad
qualities--the clever stagecraft and unbridled extravagance--of his
later work are clearly noticeable. From 1874 onwards he wrote, with
varying success, a prodigious number of plays. Among the most favourable
specimens of his talent may be mentioned _En el puno de la espada_
(1875); _O locura o santidad_ (1877), which has been translated into
Swedish and Italian; _En el seno de la muerte_ (1879), of which there
exists an admirable German version by Fastenrath. _El gran Galeoto_
(1881), perhaps the best of Echegaray's plays in conception and
execution, has been translated into several languages, and still holds
the stage. The humorous proverb, _?Piensa mal y acertaras?_ exemplifies
the author's limitations, but the attempt is interesting as an instance
of ambitious versatility. His susceptibility to new ideas is illustrated
in such pieces as _Mariana_ (1892), _Mancha que limpia_ (1895), _El Hijo
de Don Juan_ (1892), and _El Loco Dios_ (1900): these indicate a close
study of Ibsen, and _El Loco Dios_ more especially might be taken for an
unintentional parody of Ibsen's symbolism.
Echegaray succeeded to the literary inheritance of Lopez de Ayala and of
Tamayo y Baus; and though he possesses neither the poetic imagination of
the first nor the instinctive tact of the second, it is impossible to
deny that he has reached a larger audience than either. Not merely in
Spain, but in every land where Spanish is spoken, and in cities as
remote from Madrid as Munich and Stockholm, he has met with an
appreciation incomparably beyond that accorded to any other Spanish
dramatist of recent years. But it would be more than usually rash to
prophesy that this exceptional popularity will endure. There have been
signs of a reaction in Spain itself, and Echegaray's return to politics
in 1905 was significant enough. He applies his mathematics to the
drama; no writer excels him in artful construction, in the arrangement
of dramatic scenes, in mere theatrical technique, in the focusing of
attention on his chief personages. These are valuable gifts in their
way, and Echegaray has, moreover, a powerful, gloomy imagination, which
is momentarily impressive. In the drawing of character, in the invention
of felicitous phrase, in the contrivance of verbal music, he is
deficient. He alternates between the use of verse and prose; and his
hesitancy in choosing a medium of expression is amply justified, for the
writer's prose is not more distinguished than his verse. These serious
shortcomings may explain the diminution of his vogue in Spain; they will
certainly tell against him in the estimate of posterity. (J. F.-K.)
ECHELON (Fr. from _echelle_, ladder), in military tactics, a formation
of troops in which each body of troops is retired on, but not behind,
the flank of the next in front, the position of the whole thus
resembling the steps of a staircase. To form echelon from line, the
parts of the line move off, each direct to its front, in succession, so
that when the formation is completed the rightmost body, for example, is
farthest advanced, the one originally next on its left is to the left
rear, a third is to the left rear of the second, and so on. The word is
also used more loosely to express successive lines, irrespective of
distances and relative positions, e.g. the "second echelon of ammunition
supply," which is fully a day's march behind the first.
ECHIDNA, or PORCUPINE ANT-EATER (_Echidna aculeata_), one of the few
species of Monotremata, the lowest subclass of Mammalia, forming the
family Echidnidae. It is a native of Australia, where it chiefly abounds
in New South Wales, inhabiting rocky and mountainous districts, where it
burrows among the loose sand, or hides itself in crevices of rocks. In
size and appearance it bears a considerable resemblance to the hedgehog,
its upper surface being covered over with strong spines directed
backwards, and on the back inwards, so as to cross each other on the
middle line. The spines in the neighbourhood of the tail form a tuft
sufficient to hide that almost rudimentary organ. The head is produced
into a long tubular snout, covered with skin for the greater part of its
length. The opening of the mouth is small, and from it the echidna puts
forth its long slender tongue, lubricated with a viscous secretion, by
means of which it seizes the ants and other insects on which it feeds.
It has no teeth. Its legs are short and strong, and form, with its broad
feet and large solid nails, powerful burrowing organs. In common with
the other monotremes, the male echidna has its heel provided with a
sharp hollow spur, connected with a secreting gland, and with muscles
capable of pressing the secretion from the gland into the spur. It is a
nocturnal or crepuscular animal, generally sleeping during the day, but
showing considerable activity by night. When attacked it seeks to escape
either by rolling itself into a ball, its erect spines proving a
formidable barrier to its capture, or by burrowing into the sand, which
its powerful limbs enable it to do with great celerity. "The only mode
of carrying the creature," writes G. Bennett (_Gatherings of a
Naturalist in Australasia_), "is by one of the hind legs; its powerful
resistance and the sharpness of the spines will soon oblige the captor,
attempting to seize it by any other part of the body, to relinquish his
hold." In a younger stage of their development, however, the young are
carried in a temporary abdominal pouch, to which they are transferred
after hatching, and into which open the mammary glands. The echidnas are
exceedingly restless in confinement, and constantly endeavour by
burrowing to effect their escape. From the quantity of sand and mud
always found in the alimentary canal of these animals, it is supposed
that these ingredients must be necessary to the proper digestion of
their insect food.
There are two varieties of this species, the Port Moresby echidna and
the hairy echidna. The last-mentioned is found in south-eastern New
Guinea, Australia and Tasmania. In all the spines are mixed with hair;
in the Tasmanian race they are nearly hidden by the long harsh fur. Of
the three-clawed echidnas (_Proechidna_) confined to New Guinea there
are two species, Bruijn's echidna (_P. bruijnii_), discovered in 1877 in
the mountains on the north-east coast at an elevation of 3500 ft., and
the black-spined echidna (_P. nigroaculeata_) of larger size--the type
specimen measuring 31 in., as against 24 in.--with shorter
claws.