Act 18, Parl. 16, King James VI.; as rebellers and gainstanders of our

A

CHURCH DICTIONARY.

BY

WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, D. D.

VICAR OF LEEDS.

SEVENTH EDITION, REVISED AND AUGMENTED.

LONDON:

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.

1854.

JOHN CHILDS AND SON, BUNGAY.

TO

HENRY HALL,

OF BANK LODGE, LEEDS,

ESQUIRE,

SENIOR TRUSTEE OF THE ADVOWSON OF THE VICARAGE OF LEEDS,

A LOYAL MAGISTRATE,

A CONSISTENT CHRISTIAN, A FAITHFUL FRIEND,

THIS VOLUME

IS,

WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT,

INSCRIBED.

PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.

The Church Dictionary, of which the Sixth Edition is now published,

appeared originally in the shape of monthly tracts, intended by the

writer to explain to his parishioners the more important doctrines of

the Church, and the fundamental verities of our religion. The title of

Church Dictionary was adopted from a work published with a similar

object in America, by the Rev. Mr. Staunton; and the work itself assumed

the character of short dissertations on those theological terms and

ecclesiastical practices, which were misrepresented or misunderstood by

persons who had received an education external to the Church.

For these tracts there was a considerable demand; and the monthly issue

amounting to four thousand, the author was persuaded to extend his plan,

and to make the Church Dictionary a work of more general utility than

was at first designed. It was, in consequence, gradually enlarged in

each successive Edition until now, when it has assumed its last and

permanent character.

In this Edition, which has been enlarged by an addition of more than one

hundred articles, the authorities are quoted upon which the statements

are made in the more important articles; and where it has been possible,

the _ipsissima verba_ of the authors referred to have been given.

But as this publication has no pretensions beyond those of an elementary

work, it has been thought, for the most part, sufficient only to refer

to secondary authorities, such as Bingham, Comber, Wheatly, Palmer, &c.,

in whose learned works the reader, who wishes to investigate any subject

more thoroughly, will find the further references which he may require.

In deference to a wish very generally expressed, an account has been

taken from sources acknowledged to be authentic, and which are duly

noticed, of various Christian communities, not in connexion with the

Church.

It was found impossible, within the limits prescribed, to act upon

another suggestion, and to introduce the biographies of our great

divines. This, therefore, has been done in a separate publication,

entitled “An Ecclesiastical Biography.”[1]

The articles on Church architecture have been carefully revised by the

Rev. G. A. Poole, M. A., vicar of Welford.

The Law articles have been revised, partly by the Rev. James Brogden, A.

M., of Trinity College, Cambridge, and partly by William Johnston, of

Gray’s Inn, Esq., barrister-at-law.

To Mr. Johnston, known to the literary world as the author of “England

as it is,” the thanks of the present writer are also due for the

kindness with which he has assisted him in correcting the press, and for

many valuable suggestions.

The original dissertations remain unaltered; but the circumstances of

the Church of England have changed considerably from what they were when

the Church Dictionary was first published. At that time the

Protestantism of the Church of England was universally recognised, and

the fear was lest her pretensions to Catholicity should be ignored. But

now an affectation of repudiating our Protestantism is prevalent, while

by ignorant or designing men Protestantism is misrepresented as the

antithesis, not, as is the case, to Romanism, but to Catholicism; at the

same time, Catholicism is confounded with Romanism, primitive truth with

mediæval error, and the theology of the Schools with that of the

Fathers: while, therefore, the articles bearing on the catholicity,

orthodoxy, and primitive character of the Church of England are

retained, the articles relating to the heresies and peculiarities of the

Church of Rome have been expanded; and strong as they were in former

editions in condemnation of the papal system, they have been rendered

more useful, under the present exigencies of the Church, by a reference

to the decisions of the so-called Council of Trent, so as to enable the

reader to see what the peculiar tenets of that corrupt portion of the

Christian world really are.

_Vicarage, Leeds, 21 Sept. 1852._

PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION.

In this Edition the articles on the Early Heresies have been revised by

the Rev. James Craigie Robertson, M. A.;[2] the Ritual articles, by the

Rev. John Jebb, M. A,; the articles on the Councils, by the Rev.

Sanderson Robins, M. A.; and the Law articles, by William Johnston, Esq.

To Mr. Jebb’s notes in Stephens’s edition of the Book of Common Prayer,

and to his other learned works, and to Mr. Robins’s excellent treatise

entitled “Evidences of Scripture against the Claims of the Romish

Church,” reference is frequently made. Authorities have been fully

given, except when articles have been taken with only slight alterations

from Broughton or Bingham, or translated from Suicer.

_July, 1854._

A CHURCH DICTIONARY.

ABACUS. The upper member of a capital. (See _Capital_.)

In semi-Norman and early English architecture, the abacus of engaged

shafts is frequently returned along the walls, in a continued horizontal

string: perhaps the last lingering recognition of the effect of the

capital in representing that horizontal line, which was so decided in

the classic architrave, and to which the spirit of Gothic architecture

is in the main so greatly opposed.

ABBA. A Syriac word signifying Father, and expressive of attachment and

confidence. St. Paul says, _Ye have received the Spirit of adoption,

whereby we cry_ Abba, Father. (Rom. viii. 15; comp. Gal. iv. 6.) The

word is derived from the Hebrew _Ab_: and, if we may ascend still

higher, that word itself (as many others which occur in that language)

proceeds from the voice of nature; being one of the most obvious sounds,

to express one of the first and most obvious ideas.

ABBÉ. The designation assumed in France, before the Revolution, by

certain persons, who, whether in the higher orders of the ministry or

not, ostensibly devoted themselves to theological studies, in the hope

that the king would confer upon them a real abbey, _i.e._ a certain

portion of the revenues of a real abbey. Hence it became the common

title of unemployed secular priests. In Italy the word _Abate_ was

similarly used, to designate one who merely adopted the clerical habit.

[_Vocabolario della Crusca._]

ABBEY. The habitation of a society devoted to religion. It signifies a

monastery, of which the head was an Abbot or Abbess. (See _Abbot_.) Of

cathedral abbeys the bishop was considered to be virtually the abbot:

and therefore the Presbyteral Superior of these establishments was

styled Prior. The abbey of Ely was constituted a cathedral in 1109: when

the Abbot Harvey was made bishop. The abbacy was henceforward united to

the bishopric: and therefore it is that the bishops of Ely still occupy

the first stall on the right side of the choir, usually assigned to the

dean: the dean’s stall being the first on the left side, formerly

occupied by the prior. (See _Monasteries_.)

Cranmer begged earnestly of Henry VIII. that he would save some of the

abbeys, to be reformed and applied to holy and religious uses, but his

petition, and the exertions of Latimer for the same purpose, were in

vain. For the arrangement of the several buildings of an abbey, see

_Cathedral_ and _Monastery_.

ABBOT. The Father or Superior of an abbey of monks, or male persons,

living under peculiar religious vows. The word _abbot_ comes, through

the late Latin _abbas_, from the Syriac _abba_—father. (See _Abba_.) The

word Father, in its various forms of Papa, Abbas, Padre, Père, &c., has

in all countries and all ages of Christianity been applied as a title of

respect to the superior clergy and priesthood. In some parts of the East

and in Ireland, this term, abbas or abbat, was frequently confounded

with that of bishop, from the fact of the abbots being in the early

times bishops also.

Among the abbeys in England before the dissolution, were some which gave

the title of _Mitred Abbot_ [_or Abbots general_, or _sovereign_] to the

superiors of them. These mitred abbots sat and voted in the House of

Lords. They held of the king _in capite per baroniam_, their endowments

being at least an entire barony, which consisted of thirteen knights’

fees. The following are the abbeys which conferred this distinction on

their abbots: St. Alban’s, Glastonbury, St. Peter’s, Westminster; St.

Edmondsbury, St. Bennet’s of Holm, Bardney, Shrewsbury, Croyland (or

Crowland), Abingdon, Evesham, Gloucester, Ramsey, St. Mary’s, York;

Tewkesbury, Reading, Battle, Winchcomb, Hide by Winchester, Cirencester,

Waltham, Malmesbury, Thorney, St. Augustine’s, Canterbury; Selby,

Peterborough, St. John’s, Colchester; to which was added, not long

before the Reformation, Tavistock. All mitred abbots were of the

Benedictine order, except those of Waltham and Cirencester, who were

Augustinians. This fact Fuller has overlooked. (See _Dugdale’s

Monasticon_.)

But it is to be observed, that there were two other lords of parliament,

heads of religious houses, who were not abbots: (1.) The prior of St.

John’s of Jerusalem, of the Knights Hospitallers in England. He ranked

before the mitred abbots, and was considered the first baron in England.

(2.) The prior of Coventry; a solitary instance in England of the

presbyteral head of a cathedral being a spiritual peer. Of the abbots,

the abbot of Glastonbury had the precedence, till A. D. 1154, when Pope

Adrian VII., an Englishman, from the affection he entertained for the

place of his education, assigned this precedence to the abbot of St.

Alban’s. In consequence, Glastonbury ranked next after him, and Reading

had the third place.

According to the ancient laws of Christendom, confirmed by general

councils, all heads of monasteries, whether abbots or priors, owed

canonical obedience to their diocesan. And the same law subsisted till

the Reformation, wherever special exemptions had not been granted,

which, however, were numerous. Cowell, as quoted by Johnson in his

Dictionary, (voce _Abbot_,) erroneously says that the _mitred_ abbots

were exempted from episcopal jurisdiction, but that the other sorts (i.

e. the non-mitred) were subject to their diocesans. The truth is, that

the former endeavoured after their own aggrandizement in every possible

way, but had no inherent right of exemption from the fact of their being

lords of parliament, or being invested with the mitre. Thus it appears

from _Dugd. Monast._ that Gloucester, Winchcomb, and Tewkesbury were

subject to the visitation and jurisdiction of the bishop of Worcester,

till the Reformation; Croyland, Peterborough, Bardney, and Ramsey to the

bishop of Lincoln; St. Mary in York, and Selby, to the archbishop of

York, and Coventry to the bishop of Lichfield. The abbots, unless

specially exempted, took the oath of canonical obedience to their

diocesan, and after election, were confirmed by him, and received his

benediction. [_Fuller, Collier, Willis’s Mitred Abbeys._] In Ireland the

abbots who were mitred, or lords of parliament, were those of St. Mary,

Dublin; St. Thomas, Dublin; Monastereven, Baltinglass, Dunbrody, Duisk,

Jerpoint, Bective, Mellifont, Tracton, Monasternenagh, Owney, and

Holycross. All these were of the Cistercian order, except the abbot of

St. Thomas, who was of St. Victor. The other parliamentary lords, heads

of religious houses, were the cathedral priors of Christ Church, Dublin,

and of Downpatrick; the priors of Allhallows, Dublin; Conall, Kells, (in

Kilkenny,) Louth, Athassel, Killagh, Newton, and Rathboy. All these were

of the Augustinian order, except the prior of Down, who was a

Benedictine, the preceptor of the Knights Hospitallers at Wexford, and

the prior of the Knights Hospitallers at Kilmainham. (See _Monks_.)

ABBESS. The Mother or Superior of an abbey of nuns, or female persons

living under peculiar religious vows and discipline.

ABECEDARIAN HYMNS. Hymns composed in imitation of the acrostic poetry of

the Hebrews, in which each verse, or each part, commenced with the first

and succeeding letters of the alphabet, in their order. This arrangement

was intended as a help to the memory. St. Augustine composed a hymn in

this manner, for the common people to learn, against the error of the

Donatists. (See _Acrostics_.)

ABEYANCE, from the French _bayer_, to expect, is that which is in

expectation, remembrance, and intendment of law. By a principle of law,

in every land there is a fee simple in some body, or else it is in

_abeyance_; that is, though for the present it be in no man, yet it is

in expectancy belonging to him that is next to enjoy the land.—_Inst._

Thus if a man be patron of a church, and presenteth a clerk to the same;

the fee of the lands and tenements pertaining to the rectory is in the

parson; but if the parson die, and the church becometh void, then is the

fee in _abeyance_, until there be a new parson presented, admitted, and

inducted. For the frank tenement of the glebe of a parsonage, during the

time the parsonage is void, is in no man; but in _abeyance_ or

expectation, belonging to him who is next to enjoy it.—_Terms of the

Law._

ABJURATION. A solemn renunciation in public, or before a proper officer,

of some doctrinal error. A formal abjuration is often considered

necessary by the Church, when any person seeks to be received into her

communion from heresy or schism. A form for admitting Romish recusants

into the Church of England was drawn up by one of the Houses of

Convocation of 1714, but did not receive the royal sanction. It is as

follows:

_A Form for admitting Converts from the Church of Rome, and such as

shall renounce their errors._

The bishop, or some priests appointed by him for that purpose, being at

the communion table, and the person to be reconciled standing without

the rails, the bishop, or such priest as is appointed, shall speak to

the congregation as followeth:

Dearly beloved,

We are here met together for the reconciling of a penitent (lately of

the Church of Rome, or lately of the separation) to the Established

Church of England, as to a true and sound part of CHRIST’S holy Catholic

Church. Now, that this weighty affair may have its due effect, let us in

the first place humbly and devoutly pray to Almighty GOD for his

blessing upon us in that pious and charitable office we are going about.

Prevent us, O LORD, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and

further us with thy continual help, that in this and all other our

works, begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy

name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life, through JESUS

CHRIST our LORD.

Amen.

Almighty GOD, who showest to them that be in error the light of thy

truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness;

grant unto all them that are or shall be admitted into the fellowship of

CHRIST’S religion, that they may eschew those things that are contrary

to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the

same, through our LORD JESUS CHRIST.

Amen.

Psalm cxix. 161.

Let my complaint come before thee, O LORD; give me understanding

according to thy word.

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

My lips shall speak of thy praise, when thou hast taught me thy

statutes.

Yea, my tongue shall sing of thy word, for all thy commandments are

righteous.

Let thine hand help me, for I have chosen thy commandments.

I have longed for thy saving health, O LORD, and in thy law is my

delight.

O let my soul live, and it shall praise thee and thy judgments shall

help me.

I have gone astray, like a sheep that is lost; O seek thy servant, for I

do not forget thy commandments.

Glory be to the Father, &c.

As it was in the beginning, &c.

The Lesson. Luke XV. to ver. 8.

Then drew near unto him the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And

the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners,

and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What

man of you having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not

leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is

lost, until he find it? and when he hath found it, he layeth it on his

shoulders rejoicing; and when he cometh home, he calleth together his

friends and his neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I

have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy

shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety

and nine just persons which need no repentance.

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

Psalm cxv. to ver. 10.

Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give the praise, for

thy loving mercy and for thy truth’s sake.

Wherefore shall the heathen say: Where is now their GOD?

As for our GOD, he is in heaven; he hath done whatsoever pleased him.

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

They have mouths, and speak not; eyes have they, and see not; they have

ears, and hear not; noses have they, and smell not; they have hands, and

handle not; feet have they, and walk not; neither speak they through

their throat.

They that make them are like unto them, and so are all such as put their

trust in them.

But thou, house of Israel, trust thou in the Lord; he is their succour

and defence.

Glory be to the FATHER, &c.

As it was in the beginning, &c.

If the penitent comes from the separation, then this is to be used.

Psalm cxxii.

I was glad when they said unto me, We will go into the house of the

LORD.

Our feet shall stand in thy gates, O Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is built as a city that is at unity in itself.

For thither the tribes go up, even the tribes of the LORD, to testify

unto Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the LORD.

For there is the seat of judgment, even the seat of the house of

David.

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

Peace be within thy walls, and plenteousness within thy palaces.

For my brethren and companions’ sake I wish thee prosperity.

Yea, because of the house of the LORD our GOD, I will seek to do thee

good.

Glory be to the Father, &c.

As it was in the beginning, &c.

Then the bishop sitting in a chair, or the priest standing, shall speak

to the penitent, who is to be kneeling, as follows:

Dear brother, or sister,

I have good hope that you have well weighed and considered with

yourself the great work you are come about, before this time; but

inasmuch as with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with

the mouth confession is made unto salvation, that you may give the

more honour to GOD, and that this present congregation of CHRIST here

assembled may also understand your mind and will in these things, and

that this your declaration may the more confirm you in your good

resolutions, you shall answer plainly to these questions, which we in

the name of GOD and of his Church shall propose to you touching the

same:

Art thou thoroughly persuaded that those books of the Old and the New

Testament, which are received as canonical scriptures by this Church,

contain sufficiently all doctrine requisite and necessary to eternal

salvation through faith in JESUS CHRIST?

Answer. I am so persuaded.

Dost thou believe in GOD the FATHER Almighty, Maker of heaven and

earth, and in JESUS CHRIST, his only begotten SON our LORD, and that

he was conceived of the HOLY GHOST, born of the Virgin Mary, that he

suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, that

he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day, that he

ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of GOD the FATHER

Almighty, and from thence shall come again, at the end of the world,

to judge the quick and the dead?

And dost thou believe in the HOLY GHOST, the holy Catholic Church, the

communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the

flesh, and everlasting life after death?

Answer. All this I stedfastly believe.

Art thou truly sorrowful that thou hast not followed the way

prescribed in these Scriptures for the directing of the faith and

practice of a true disciple of CHRIST JESUS?

Answer. I am heartily sorry, and I hope for mercy through JESUS

CHRIST.

Dost thou embrace the truth of the gospel in the love of it, and

stedfastly resolve to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this

present world all the days of thy life?

Answer. I do embrace it, and do so resolve, GOD being my helper.

Dost thou earnestly desire to be received into the communion of this

Church, as into a true and sound part of CHRIST’S holy Catholic

Church?

Answer. This I earnestly desire.

If the penitent come from the Church of Rome, this question is to

follow:

Dost thou renounce all the errors and superstitions of the present

Romish Church, so far as they are come to thy knowledge?

Answer. I do from my heart renounce them all.

If the penitent from the Church of Rome be in holy orders, let these

further questions be asked:

Dost thou in particular renounce the twelve last articles added in the

confession, commonly called “the Creed of Pope Pius IV.,” after having

read them, and duly considered them?

Answer. I do upon mature deliberation reject them all, as grounded

upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of GOD.

Dost thou acknowledge the supremacy of the kings and queens of this

realm, as by law established, and declared in the thirty-seventh

article of religion?

Answer. I do sincerely acknowledge it.

Wilt thou then give thy faithful diligence always so to minister the

doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of CHRIST, as the LORD

hath commanded, and as this Church and realm hath received the same,

according to the commandments of GOD, so that thou mayest teach the

people with all diligence to keep and observe the same?

Answer. I will do so by the help of the LORD.

Wilt thou conform thyself to the liturgy of the Church of England, as

by law established?

Answer. I will.

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

asked:

Dost thou allow and approve of the orders of bishops, priests, and

deacons [as what have been in the Church of CHRIST from the time of

the apostles]; and wilt thou, as much as in thee lieth, promote all

due regard to the same good order and government of the Church of

CHRIST?

[NOTE. That within the crotchets is to be used only when the

penitent hath been a teacher in some separate congregation.]

Answer. I do approve it, and will endeavour that it may be so

regarded, as much as in me lieth.

Wilt thou conform thyself to the liturgy of the Church of England, as

by law established, and be diligent in attending the prayers and other

offices of the Church?

Answer. I will do so by the help of GOD.

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

asked:

Art thou heartily sorry, that when thou wast in the way of truth, thou

didst so little watch over thy own heart, as to suffer thyself to be

led away with the shows of vain doctrine? and dost thou stedfastly

purpose to be more careful for the future, and to persevere in that

holy profession, which thou hast now made?

Answer. I am truly grieved for my former unstedfastness, and am fully

determined by GOD’S grace to walk more circumspectly for the time to

come, and to continue in this my profession to my life’s end.

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

Almighty GOD, who hath given you a sense of your errors, and a will to

do all these things, grant also unto you strength and power to perform

the same, that he may accomplish his work, which he hath begun in you,

through JESUS CHRIST. Amen.

_The Absolution._

Almighty GOD, our heavenly FATHER, who of his great mercy hath

promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance

and true faith turn unto him, have mercy upon you, pardon and deliver

you from all your sins, confirm and strengthen you in all goodness,

and bring you to everlasting life, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.

Amen.

Then the bishop, or priest, taking the penitent by the right hand, shall

say unto him:

I N., bishop of ——, or I A. B., do upon this thy solemn profession and

earnest request receive thee into the holy communion of the Church of

England, in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY

GHOST.

People: Amen.

Then the bishop, or priest, shall say the LORD’S Prayer, with that

which follows, all kneeling.

Let us pray.

Our FATHER, which art in heaven, &c.

O GOD of truth and love, we bless and magnify thy holy name for thy

great mercy and goodness in bringing this thy servant into the

communion of this Church: give him (or her) we beseech thee, stability

and perseverance in that faith of which he (or she) hath in the

presence of GOD and of this congregation witnessed a good confession.

Suffer him (or her) not to be moved from it by any temptations of

Satan, enticements of the world, the scoffs of irreligious men, or the

revilings of those who are still in error; but guard him (or her) by

thy grace against all these snares, and make him (or her) instrumental

in turning others from the errors of their ways, to the saving of

their souls from death, and the covering a multitude of sins. And in

thy good time, O LORD, bring, we pray thee, into the way of truth all

such as have erred and are deceived; and so fetch them home, blessed

LORD, to thy flock, that there may be one fold under one Shepherd, the

LORD JESUS CHRIST; to whom with the FATHER and the HOLY SPIRIT be all

honour and glory, world without end. Amen.

Then the bishop, or priest, standing up (if there be no communion at

that time), shall turn himself to the person newly admitted, and say:

Dear brother, or sister,

Seeing that you have by the goodness of GOD proceeded thus far, I must

put you in mind, that you take care to go on in that good way into

which you are entered; and for your establishment and furtherance

therein, that, if you have not been confirmed, you endeavour to be so

the next opportunity, and receive the holy sacrament of the LORD’S

supper. And may GOD’S Holy Spirit ever be with you. Amen.

The peace of GOD, which passeth all understanding, keep your heart and

mind by CHRIST JESUS. Amen.—_Cardwell’s Synodalia. Wilkins’s

Concilia._

ABSOLUTION. (See _Confession_, _Penance_.) The power of absolution

consists in removing the guilt and punishment of sin, and receiving the

guilty person into favour, as if he were perfectly innocent. This is

variously expressed in holy Scripture. It is sometimes made the same

with justification, which is the acquitting a person from guilt, and

looking upon him as perfectly righteous. It is opposed to condemnation,

which is a laying of sin to his charge. This power is expressed by

remitting or retaining of sin, which is the pardoning or punishing of

it. It is called sometimes the power of opening and shutting the kingdom

of heaven, which is by admitting into, or excluding out of, the Church;

for none can be received into the kingdom of glory hereafter but such as

are admitted into the church or kingdom of grace here: called therefore

the power of the keys. It is called in St. Matthew the power of binding

and loosing, (xvi. 19,) “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,” &c. Sinners

are said to be “tied and bound with the chain of their sins,” to be

“holden with cords,” and to be “in the bond of iniquity.” Now to loosen

this bond, to untie those cords, and so be freed from these chains, is

done by what we call the power of absolution, or remission of sins: and

so the words of St. Matthew are the same in effect with those of St.

John, “Whose soever sins ye remit,” &c. This power of pardoning is

annexed to some acts of religion, instituted by God for this purpose,

and executed only by CHRIST’S ministers. As, 1. Baptism was ordained for

the remission of sins; so St. Peter told his converts, (Acts ii. 38,)

“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you,” &c. 2. The holy sacrament

of the eucharist was instituted for this purpose: as we read, Matt.

xxvi. 28, where CHRIST’S body is said to be broken, and “his blood shed

for many for the remission of sins.” 3. The preaching the word is for

the proclaiming of pardon, called therefore the ministry, or word, of

reconciliation. (2 Cor. v. 18.) 4. The prayer of the elders over the

sick hath joined to it the forgiveness of sins. (Jas. v. 14.) Now these

ministerial acts for the “remission of sins,” are peculiar only to the

“priest’s office:” neither is the virtue or effect of them to be

imparted to any other; for to them it is said, and to no other, “whose

sins ye remit,” &c.; and therefore a pardon pronounced by them must be

of greater efficacy than by any ordinary person.—_Hole._

The authority and power of conferring absolution on penitents, wherewith

our gracious SAVIOUR hath so clearly vested his ministerial successors,

“whose soever sins ye remit,” &c., having been abused by the Church of

Rome into a lucrative market of pardons and indulgences, it is no wonder

that Luther, and all our first reformers, should have taken infinite

offence at a practice so flagitious, and so directly contrary to the

command of CHRIST, “freely ye have received, freely give.” This,

however, should not have been a reason, as it was with too many, for

rejecting all absolutions. The true doctrine is, and must be, this: For

the consolation of his Church, and particularly of such as class with

the penitent publican in the gospel, CHRIST hath left with his bishops

and presbyters a power to pronounce absolution. This absolution is on

condition of faith and repentance in the person or persons receiving it.

On sufficient appearance of these, and on confession made with these

appearances in particular persons, the bishop or presbyter, as the

messenger of CHRIST, is to pronounce it. But he cannot search the heart;

GOD only, who can, confirms it. The power of absolution is remarkably

exercised by St. Paul, though absent, and depending on both report and

the information of the HOLY SPIRIT, in regard to the Corinthian

excommunicated for incest. The apostle, speaking in the character of one

to whom the authority of absolution had been committed, saith to the

Church of Corinth, “to whom ye forgave anything, I forgive also.” (2

Cor. ii. 10.) Thus the penitent was pardoned and restored to communion

by delegated authority, in the person of CHRIST, lest such an one should

be swallowed up with over-much sorrow, and lest Satan should get an

advantage over us. As these reasons for compassion still remain, it

seems evident that the Church should still retain the same power of

showing that compassion, as far as human understanding may direct its

application.—_Skelton._

Sacerdotal absolution does not necessarily require any particular or

auricular confession of private sins; forasmuch as that the grand

absolution of baptism was commonly given without any particular

confession. And therefore the Romanists vainly found the necessity of

auricular confession upon those words of our SAVIOUR, _Whose soever

sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them_: as if there could be no

absolution without particular confession; when it is so plain, that

the great absolution of baptism (the power of which is founded by the

ancients upon this very place) required no such particular confession.

We may hence infer, that the power of any sacerdotal absolution is

only ministerial; because the administration of baptism, (which is the

most universal absolution,) so far as man is concerned in it, is no

more than ministerial. All the office and power of man in it is only

to minister the external form, but the internal power and grace of

remission of sins is properly GOD’S; and so it is in all other sorts

of absolution.—_Bingham._

The bishops and priests of the whole Christian Church have ever used to

absolve all that truly repented, and at this day it is retained in our

Church as a part of the daily office; which being so useful, so

necessary, and founded on holy Scripture, needs not any arguments to

defend it, but that the ignorance and prejudice of some make them take

offence at it, and principally because it hath been so much abused by

the Papal Church. We may declare our abhorrency of these evil uses of

absolution; though in that sober, moderate, and useful manner we do

perform it, we do not vary from the prime intention of CHRIST’S

commission, and the practice of antiquity: absolution was instituted by

JESUS, and if it have been corrupted by men, we will cast away the

corruptions, not the ordinance itself.—_Comber._

Sin is compared to a bond, (Acts viii. 23; Prov. v. 22,) because it

binds down the soul by its guilt and power, and hinders it from free

converse with GOD, yea, makes it liable to eternal condemnation: but

JESUS came to unloose these bonds, and actually did so to divers, when

he was upon earth, and left this power to his apostles and their

successors, when he went to heaven; and this unloosing men from the bond

of their sins is that which we properly call _absolution_, and it is a

necessary and most comfortable part of the priest’s office. But the

sectaries do wholly disown this power, and are so bold as to deride us

for the use thereof: yet it is certain that CHRIST did give his

disciples the power of binding and loosing, (Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18,)

or, as it is elsewhere called, of remitting sins, (John xx. 22, 23,)

frequently repeating this commission, and solemnly promising to ratify

in heaven what they did on earth. It is plain also, that the apostles

exercised this power, (Acts ii. 38; 2 Cor. ii. 10,) and gave their

successors a charge to use it also (Gal. vi. 1; James v. 14, 15); and

the primitive histories do abundantly testify they did so very often; so

that they must cancel all those lines of Scripture, and records of

antiquity also, before they can take away this power. Nor can they

fairly pretend it was a personal privilege dying with the apostles,

since the Church hath used it ever since, and penitents need a

comfortable application of their pardon now, as well as they did then:

and whereas they object with the Jews, that “none can forgive sins but

GOD only,” (Luke v. 21,) we reply, that GOD alone can exercise this

power in his own right, but he may and hath communicated it to others,

who did it in his name, and by his authority; or, as St. Paul speaks,

_in the person of Christ_ (2 Cor. ii. 10); so that St. Ambrose saith,

“GOD himself forgives sins by them to whom he hath granted the power of

absolution.”—_Comber._

Calvin’s liturgy has no form of absolution in it: but he himself says

that it was an omission in him at first, and a defect in his liturgy;

which he afterwards would have rectified and amended, but could not. He

makes this ingenuous confession in one of his epistles: “There is none

of us,” says he, “but must acknowledge it to be very useful, that, after

the general confession, some remarkable promise of Scripture should

follow, whereby sinners might be raised to the hopes of pardon and

reconciliation. And I would have introduced this custom from the

beginning, but some fearing that the novelty of it would give offence, I

was over-easy in yielding to them; so the thing was omitted.” I must do

that justice to Calvin here, by the way, to say, that he was no enemy to

private absolution neither, as used in the Church of England. For in one

of his answers to Westphalus he thus expresses his mind about it: “I

have no intent to deny the usefulness of private absolution: but as I

commend it in several places of my writings, provided the use be left to

men’s liberty, and free from superstition, so to bind men’s consciences

by a law to it, is neither lawful nor expedient.” Here we have Calvin’s

judgment, fully and entirely, for the usefulness both of public and

private absolution. He owns it to be a defect in his liturgy, that it

wants a public absolution.—_Bingham._

Calvin’s own account of his facility merits attention. In his character,

flexibility of disposition appears to be a lineament either so faint, or

so obscured by more prominent features of a different cast, that it has

generally escaped vulgar observation. His panegyrist, the learned

translator of Mosheim’s Eccles. Hist., [Maclaine,] describes him as

surpassing most of the reformers “in obstinacy, asperity, and

turbulence.”—_Shepherd._

This penitence our Church makes not a new sacrament, (as doth the Church

of Rome,) but a means of returning to the grace of GOD bestowed in

baptism. “They which in act or deed sin after baptism, (saith our

homily,) when they turn to GOD unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by

this sacrifice from their sins.”—_Puller._

If our confession be serious and hearty, this absolution is as

effectual as if GOD did pronounce it from heaven. So says the

Confession of Saxony and Bohemia, and so says the Augustan Confession;

and, which is more, so says St. Chrysostom in his fifth homily upon

Isaiah, “Heaven waits and expects the priest’s sentence here on earth;

the LORD follows the servant, and what the servant rightly binds or

looses here on earth, that the LORD confirms in heaven.” The same says

St. Gregory (Hom. 20) upon the Gospels: “The apostles (and in them all

priests) were made GOD’S vicegerents here on earth, in his name and

stead to retain or remit sins.” St. Augustine and Cyprian, and

generally all antiquity, say the same; so does our Church in many

places, particularly in the form of absolution for the sick; but,

above all, holy Scripture is clear, (St. John xx. 23,) “Whose soever

sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them.” Which power of remitting

sins was not to end with the apostles, but is a part of the ministry

of reconciliation, as necessary now as it was then, and therefore to

continue as long as the ministry of reconciliation; that is, to the

end of the world. (Eph. iv. 12, 13.) When therefore the priest

absolves, GOD absolves, if we be truly penitent. Now, this remission

of sins granted here to the priest, to which GOD hath promised a

confirmation in heaven, is not the act of preaching, or baptizing, or

admitting men to the holy communion. But this power of remitting sins,

mentioned John xx., was not granted (though promised, Matt. xvi. 19)

till _now_, that is, after the resurrection, as appears by the

ceremony of _breathing_, signifying that then it was given: and

secondly, by the word _receive_, used in that place, (ver. 22,) which

he could not properly have used, if they had been endued with this

power before. Therefore the power of remitting, which here GOD

authorizes, and promises certain assistance to, is neither preaching

nor baptizing, but some other way of remitting, viz. that which the

Church calls absolution. And if it be so, then, to doubt of the effect

of it, (supposing we be truly penitent, and such as GOD will pardon,)

is to question the truth of GOD: and he that, under pretence of

reverence to GOD, denies or despises this power, does injury to GOD,

slighting his commission, and is no better than a Novatian, says St.

Ambrose.—_Sparrow._

Our Church has not appointed the indicative form of absolution to be

used in all these senses, but only once in the office of the sick, and

that may reasonably be interpreted, (according to the account given out

of St. Jerome,) a declaration of the sinner’s pardon, upon the apparent

evidences of a sincere repentance, and the best judgment the minister

can make of his condition; beyond which none can go, but the searcher of

hearts, to whom alone belongs the infallible and irreversible sentence

of absolution. The indicative form, “I absolve thee,” may be interpreted

to mean no more than a declaration of GOD’S will to a penitent sinner,

that, upon the best judgment the priest can make of his repentance, he

esteems him absolved before GOD, and accordingly pronounces and declares

him absolved. As St. Jerome observes, the priests under the old law were

said to cleanse a leper, or pollute him; not that they were the authors

of his pollution, but that they declared him to be polluted, who before

seemed to many to have been clean. As, therefore, the priest makes the

leper clean or unclean, so the bishop or presbyter here binds or looses,

not properly making the guilty or the guiltless; but according to the

tenor of his office, when he hears the distinction of sins, he knows who

is to be bound, and who is to be loosed. Upon this also, the master of

the sentences (following St. Jerome) observes, that the priests of the

gospel have that right and office which the legal priests had of old

under the law in curing the lepers. These, therefore, forgive sins, or

retain them, whilst they show and declare that they are forgiven or

retained by GOD. For the priests “put the name of the LORD” upon the

children of Israel, but it was he himself that blessed them, as it is

read in Num. vi. 27.—_Bingham._

Our Church maintains, appealing to Scripture for the proof of it, that

some power of absolving or remitting sins, derived from the apostles,

remains with their successors in the ministry; and accordingly, at the

ordination of priests, the words of our Saviour, on which the power is

founded, are solemnly repeated to them by the bishop, and the power at

the same time conferred. We do not pretend it is in any sort a

_discretionary_ power of forgiving sins, for the priest has no

_discernment of the spirit_ and hearts of men, as the apostles had, but

a power of pronouncing authoritatively, in the name of GOD, who has

committed to the priest the ministry of reconciliation, _his_ pardon and

forgiveness to all true penitents and sincere believers. That GOD alone

can forgive sins, that he is the sole author of all blessings, spiritual

as well as temporal, is undeniable: but that he can declare his gracious

assurance of pardon, and convey his blessings to us, by what means and

instruments he thinks fit, is no less certain. In whatever way he

vouchsafes to do it, it is our duty humbly and thankfully to receive

them; not to dispute his wisdom in the choice of those means and

instruments; for, in that case, he that despiseth, despiseth not man,

but GOD.—_Waldo._

The following remarks on our forms of absolution occur in “Palmer’s

Origines Liturgicæ.”

“An absolution followed the confession formerly in the offices of the

English churches, for prime, or the first hour of the day. We may,

perhaps, assign to the absolution thus placed, an antiquity equal to

that of the confession, though _Gemma Animæ_ and Durandus do not appear

expressly to mention it. The sacerdotal benediction of penitents was in

the earliest times conveyed in the form of a prayer to GOD for their

absolution; but, in after ages, different forms of benediction were

used, both in the East and West. With regard to these varieties of

_form_, it does not appear that they were formerly considered of any

importance. A benediction seems to have been regarded as equally valid,

whether it was conveyed in the form of a petition or a declaration,

whether in the optative or the indicative mood, whether in the active or

the passive voice, whether in the first, second, or third person. It is

true that a direct prayer to GOD is a most ancient form of blessing; but

the use of a precatory, or an optative form, by no means warrants the

inference, that the person who uses it is devoid of any divinely

instituted authority to bless and absolve in the congregation of GOD.

Neither does the use of a direct indicative form of blessing or

absolution imply anything but the exercise of an authority which GOD has

given, to such an extent, and under such limitations, as Divine

revelation has declared.”

In the primitive Church absolution was regarded to consist of five

kinds: sacramental, by baptism and the eucharist; declaratory, by word

of mouth and doctrine; precatory, by imposition of hands and prayer;

judicial, by relaxation of Church censures.—_Bingham._

The Absolution in the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer was first

inserted in the Second Book of King Edward VI. It can be pronounced by

the priest _only or alone_. At the last review the word _Minister_ in

the rubric preceding the absolution, was changed into _Priest_: this

change being obviously adopted from the Scotch Prayer Book in Charles

I.’s time, where the word in the same place is _Presbyter_. The other

two absolutions are coeval with our reformed Prayer Book. The

ministerial absolution of persons unquiet in conscience, before

receiving the holy communion, is mentioned in the first exhortation on

giving notice of the communion; and the absolution of excommunicated

persons in the 65th Canon.

ABSTINENCE. (See _Fasting_.) In the Romish Church, fasting and

abstinence admit of a distinction, and different days are appointed for

each of them. On their days of fasting, they are allowed but one meal in

four and twenty hours; but, on days of abstinence, provided they abstain

from flesh, and make but a moderate meal, they are indulged in a

collation at night. The times by them set apart for the first are, all

Lent, except Sundays, the Ember days, the vigils of the more solemn

feasts, and all Fridays except those that fall within the twelve days of

Christmas, and between Easter and the Ascension. Their days of

abstinence are all the Sundays in Lent, St. Mark’s day, if it does not

fall in Easter week, the three Rogation days, all Saturdays throughout

the year, with the Fridays before excepted, unless either happen to be

Christmas day. The reason why they observe St. Mark as a day of

abstinence is, as we learn from their own books, in imitation of St.

Mark’s disciples, the first Christians of Alexandria, who, under this

saint’s conduct, were eminent for their great prayer, abstinence, and

sobriety. They further tell us, that St. Gregory the Great, the apostle

of England, first set apart this day for abstinence and public prayer,

as an acknowledgment of the Divine mercy, in putting a stop to a

mortality in his time at Rome.

We do not find that the Church of England makes any difference between

days of fasting and days of abstinence. It is true, in the title of the

table of Vigils, &c., she mentions fasts and days of abstinence

separately; but when she comes to enumerate the particulars, she calls

them all days of fasting or abstinence, without distinguishing between

the one and the other. Nor does she anywhere point out to us what food

is proper for such times or seasons, or seem to place any part of

religion in abstaining from any particular kinds of meat. It is true, by

a statute, (5 Eliz. 5,) none were allowed to eat flesh on fish-days,

(which are there declared to be all Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays

in the year,) without a licence first obtained, for which they are to

pay a yearly fine, (except such as are sick, who may be licensed either

by the bishop or minister,) under penalty of three pounds’ forfeiture,

or three months’ imprisonment without bail, and of forty shillings’

forfeiture for any master of a family that suffers or conceals it. But

then this is declared to be a mere political law, for the increase of

fishermen and mariners, and repairing of port towns and navigation, and

not for any superstition to be maintained in the choice of meats. For,

by the same act, whosoever, by preaching, teaching, writing, &c.,

affirms it to be necessary to abstain from flesh for the saving of the

soul of man, or for the service of GOD, otherwise than other politic

laws are or be, is to be punished as a spreader of false news. That is,

he must suffer imprisonment till he produce the author; and, if he

cannot produce him, must be punished at the discretion of the king’s

council. The sections of this act which relate to eating fish on

Wednesdays, were repealed by 27 Eliz. c. 11.

With us, therefore, neither Church nor State makes any difference in the

kinds of meat; but as far as the former determines in the matter, she

seems to recommend an entire abstinence from all manner of food till the

time of fasting be over; declaring in her homilies, that fasting (by the

decree of the six hundred and thirty fathers, assembled at the Council

of Chalcedon, which was one of the four first general councils, who

grounded their determination upon the sacred Scriptures, and

long-continued usage or practice both of the prophets and other godly

persons, before the coming of CHRIST, and also of the apostles and other

devout men in the New Testament) is a withholding of meat, drink, and

all natural food from the body, for the determined time of

fasting.—_Wheatly._

ABYSSINIA. The Abyssinian Church was founded early in the fourth

century. Its first bishop, Frumentius, received consecration from St.

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and to this day the _Abund_ of

Abyssinia is consecrated by the Alexandrian patriarch. In the sixth

century the Christians of Abyssinia fell into the heresy of the

Monophysites, in which they still remain; and they also agree with the

Greek Church in denying the procession of the HOLY GHOST from the SON.

In the fifth, and again in the seventeenth, century, attempts were made

to reduce the Abyssinian Christians to obedience to the Roman see, but

the attempt in both instances utterly failed. The number of Christians

in Abyssinia is said to amount to three millions.

ACŒMETÆ. (Ἁκοιμηταί, Watchers.) An order of monks instituted at the

beginning of the fifth century at Constantinople, who were divided into

three classes, who performed the Divine service by rotation, and so

continued night and day without intermission.

ACEPHALI. (ἀ and κεφαλὴ, literally, _without a head_.) The name given to

those of the Egyptian Eutychians, who, after Peter Magus, bishop of

Alexandria, had signed the _Henoticon_ of Zeno, A. D. 482, formed a

separate sect. (See _Henoticon_.) The word is also applied to those

bishops who were exempt from the jurisdiction of a metropolitan or

patriarch.

ACOLYTH, or ACOLYTE, (ἀκολουθος,) in our old English called Collet, was

an inferior church servant, who, next under the subdeacon, waited on the

priests and deacons, and performed the meaner offices of lighting the

candles, carrying the bread and wine, &c. He was allowed to wear the

cassock and surplice. In the Church of Rome it was accounted one of the

minor orders. In the Greek Church it is supposed to be another name for

the order of subdeacons, according to Bingham.—_Jebb._

ACROSTIC. A form of poetical composition among the Hebrews, composed of

twenty-two lines, or stanzas, according to the number of letters in the

Hebrew alphabet, each line or stanza beginning with each letter in its

order. Of the several poems of this character, there are twelve in all,

in the Old Testament, viz. Psalms xxv., xxxiv., xxxvii., cxi., cxii.,

cxix., cxlv. Part of Proverbs xxxi. Lament. i., ii., iii., iv. Psalm

cxix. is the most remarkable specimen. It still retains in the Bible

translation the name of the several letters of the Hebrew alphabet, to

mark its several divisions. This Psalm consists of twenty-two stanzas,

(the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet,) each division

consisting of eight couplets; the first line of each couplet beginning

with that letter of the alphabet which marks the division. Psalm xxxvii.

consists of twenty-two quatrains; the first line only of each quatrain

being acrostical. Lam. i. and ii., of twenty-two triplets, the first

line of each only being acrostical. Lam. iii., of twenty-two triplets

also, but with every line acrostical. Lam. iv. and Psalms xxv., xxxiv.,

and cxv., and part of Prov. xxxi., of twenty-two couplets, the first

line only of each being acrostical. Psalms cxi. and cxii., of twenty-two

lines each, in alphabetical order. The divisions of the Hebrew poetry

into lines, not metrical, but rhythmical and parallel in sentiment, is

very much elucidated by the alphabetical or acrostical poems.—_Jebb._

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. One of the canonical books of the New Testament.

It contains a great part of the lives of St. Peter and St. Paul,

beginning at our Lord’s ascension, and continued down to St. Paul’s

arrival at Rome, after his appeal to Cæsar; comprehending in all about

thirty years. St. Luke has been generally considered the author of this

book; and his principal design in writing it was to obviate the false

Acts, and false histories, which began to be dispersed up and down the

world. The exact time of his writing it is not known; but it must have

been written at least two years after St. Paul’s arrival at Rome,

because it informs us that St. Paul “dwelt two whole years in his own

hired house.” Perhaps he wrote it while he remained with St. Paul,

during the time of his imprisonment, Acts xxviii. 30.

St. Luke wrote this work in Greek; and his language is generally purer,

and more elegant, than that of the other writers of the New Testament.

Epíphanius (_Hæres._ xxx. chap. 3 and 6) tells us that this book was

translated by the Ebionites out of Greek into Hebrew, that is, into

Syriac, which was the common language of the Jews in Palestine; but that

those heretics corrupted it with a mixture of many falsities and

impieties, injurious to the memory of the apostles. St. Jerome assures

us, that a certain priest of Asia added to the true, genuine Acts, the

voyages of St. Paul and St. Thecla, and the story of baptizing a lion.

Tertullian (_de Baptismo_, chap. xvii.) tells us that St. John the

evangelist, having convicted this priest of varying from the truth in

this relation, the good man excused himself, saying, he did it purely

out of love to St. Paul.

The Marcionites and Manichæans, because they were sensible that this

book too plainly condemned their errors, rejected it out of the Canon of

Scripture. (Tertull. _contra Marcion_, lib. 5.)

There were several spurious ACTS OF THE APOSTLES; particularly, I. The

Acts of the Apostles, supposed to be written by Abdias, the pretended

bishop of Babylon, who gave out, that he was ordained bishop by the

apostles themselves, when they were upon their journey into Persia. II.

The Acts of St. Peter: this book came originally from the school of the

Ebionites. III. The Acts of St. Paul, which is entirely lost. Eusebius,

who had seen it, pronounces it of no authority. IV. The Acts of St. John

the Evangelist; a book made use of by the Encratites, Manichæans, and

Priscillianists. V. The Acts of St. Andrew; received by the Manichæans,

Encratites, and Apotactics. VI. The Acts of St. Thomas the Apostle;

received particularly by the Manichæans. VII. The Acts of St. Philip:

this book the Gnostics made use of. VIII. The Acts of St. Matthias. Some

have imagined that the Jews for a long time had concealed the original

Acts of the Life and Death of St. Matthias, written in Hebrew; and that

a monk of the abbey of St. Matthias at Treves, having got them out of

their hands, procured them to be translated into Latin, and published

them. But the critics will not allow them to be genuine and

authentic.—_Cotelerius. Fabricius Apocr. N. T. Tillemont, Hist. Eccles._

ADAMITES. A sect of Christian heretics who imitated Adam’s nakedness

before his fall, believing themselves as innocent since their redemption

by the death of CHRIST, and therefore met together naked upon all

occasions, asserting that if Adam had not sinned, there would have been

no marriages. They sprang from the Carpocratians and Gnostics, and

followed the errors of an infamous person called Prodicus. They gave the

name of deity to the four elements, rejected prayer, and said it was not

necessary to confess JESUS CHRIST. This sect was renewed in Flanders by

one Tanchelm, (1115–1124,) who being followed by 3000 soldiers,

committed all kinds of vice, calling their villanies by a spiritual

name. In the 15th century one Picard, so called from the country of his

birth, renewed it in Bohemia, from whence the sect spread into Poland:

it was said they met in the night, and used these words, (originally

ascribed to the Priscillianists in the 4th century,) _Swear, forswear,

and discover not the secret_.

ADMINISTRATOR. An ancient officer of the Church, whose duty was to

defend the cause of the widows, orphans, and all others who might be

destitute of help.

ADMINISTRATION, in an ecclesiastical sense, is used to express the

giving or dispensing the sacrament of our Lord.—In its more general use

it signifies the distribution of the personal effects of intestates,

which is made by the ordinary according to the enactment of sundry

statutes; the principal of which is 22 and 23 Car. II. cap. x.

ADMONITION. The first step of ecclesiastical censure, according to the

words of the apostle, “a man that is an heretic, after the first and

second admonition, reject.” (Tit. iii. 10.) This part of episcopal

discipline always precedes excommunication; which, however, must

necessarily follow, if the offender continue contumacious, and hardened

in his error or crime. Vide Canon 64, &c. The word also occurs in the

Ordination Service: “following with a glad mind and will their godly

admonition.”—_Jebb._

ADMONITIONISTS. Certain Puritans in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who

were so called from being the authors of the “Admonition to the

Parliament,” 1571, in which everything in the Church of England was

condemned, which was not after the fashion of Geneva. They required

every ceremony to be “commanded in the Word,” and set at nought all

general rules and canons of the Church.

ADOPTIANS. Heretics in several parts of Spain, who held that our SAVIOUR

was GOD only by adoption. Their notions were condemned at Frankfort in

the year 794.

ADOPTION. To adopt is to make him a son who was not so by birth. The

Catechism teaches us that it is in holy baptism that “we are made

members of CHRIST, _children of_ GOD, and inheritors of the kingdom of

heaven.” GOD _sent forth his Son to redeem them that were under the law,

that we might receive the adoption of sons_. (Gal. iv. 4, 5.)

ADORATION. This word signifies a particular sort of worship, which the

Pagans gave to their deities: but, amongst Christians, it is used for

the general respect and worship paid to GOD. The heathens paid their

regard to their gods, by putting their hands to their mouths, and

kissing them. This was done in some places standing, and sometimes

kneeling; their faces were usually covered in their worship, and

sometimes they threw themselves prostrate on the ground. The first

Christians in their public prayers were wont to stand; and this they did

always on Sundays, and on the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost,

in memory of our LORD’S resurrection, as is still common in the Eastern

Churches. They were wont to turn their faces towards the east, either

because the East is a title given to CHRIST in the Old Testament, (as by

Zachariah, vi. 12, according to the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate,)

or else to show that they expected the coming of CHRIST at the last day

from the east.

ADULT BAPTISM. (See _Baptism_.)

ADVENT. For the greater solemnity of the three principal holidays,

Christmas day, Easter day, and Whit-Sunday, the Church hath appointed

certain days to attend them: some to go before, and others to come after

them. Before Christmas are appointed four “Advent Sundays,” so called

because the design of them is to prepare us for a religious

commemoration of the _advent_ or coming of CHRIST in the flesh. The

Roman ritualists would have the celebration of this holy season to be

apostolical, and that it was instituted by St. Peter. But the precise

time of its institution is not so easily to be determined; though it

certainly had its beginning before the year 450, because Maximus

Taurinensis, who lived about that time, writ a homily upon it. And it is

to be observed, that, for the more strict and religious observation of

this season, courses of sermons were formerly preached in several

cathedrals on Wednesdays and Fridays, as is now the usual practice in

Lent. And we find by the Salisbury Missal, that, before the Reformation,

there was a special Epistle and Gospel relating to CHRIST’S advent,

appointed for those days during all that time.—_Wheatly._

It should be observed here, that it is the peculiar computation of the

Church, to begin her year, and to renew the annual course of her

service, at this time of Advent, therein differing from all other

accounts of time whatsoever. The reason of which is, because she does

not number her days, or measure her seasons, so much by the motion of

the sun, as by the course of our SAVIOUR; beginning and counting on her

year with him, who, being the true “Sun of righteousness,” began now to

rise upon the world, and, as “the Day-star on high,” to enlighten them

that sat in spiritual darkness.—_Bp. Cosin, Wheatly._

The lessons and services, therefore, for the four first Sundays in her

liturgical year, propose to our meditations the two-fold advent of our

LORD JESUS CHRIST; teaching us that it is he who was to come, and did

come, to redeem the world; and that it is he also who shall come again,

to be our judge. The end proposed by the Church in setting these two

appearances of CHRIST together before us, at this time, is to beget in

our minds proper dispositions to celebrate the one and expect the other;

that so with joy and thankfulness we may now “go to Bethlehem, and see

this great thing which is come to pass, which the LORD hath made known

to us,” even the Son of GOD come to visit us in great humility; and

thence, with faith unfeigned and hope immoveable, ascend in heart and

mind to meet the same Son of GOD in the air, coming in glorious majesty

to judge the quick and dead.—_Bp. Horne._

ADVOCATE, the word used in our Bibles as a translation of the Greek

παράκλητος, (see _Paraclete_,) which signifies one who exhorts, defends,

comforts; also one who prays or intercedes for another. It is an

appellation given to the HOLY SPIRIT by our SAVIOUR. (John xiv. 16; xv.

26.)

ADVOCATES are mentioned in the 96th, 131st, and 133rd English Canons, as

regular members of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The pleaders, or superior

practitioners, in all the English and Irish Church Courts are so called.

In London they form a corporation, or college, called Doctors’ Commons;

because all Advocates must be Doctors of Law, and they formerly lived

together in a collegiate manner, with a common table, &c. The candidate

Advocates obtain a fiat from the archbishop of Canterbury, and are

admitted by the judge to practise. In Ireland they do not form a

college: they must be Doctors of Law, but generally practise in the

common law or equity courts, besides. They are admitted to practise by

the judge of the Prerogative Court. The pleaders in the supreme courts

in Scotland, and generally throughout Europe, are called Advocates. The

institution of the order is very ancient. About the time of the emperor

Alexander Severus (see _Butler’s_ Life of L’Hopital) three ranks of

legal practitioners were established: the _orators_, who were the

pleaders; the _advocates_, who instructed the orators in points of law;

and the _cognitores_, or _procuratores_, who discharged much the same

office as proctors or attorneys now. The first order gradually merged

into the second.—_Jebb._

ADVOWSON, is the right of patronage to a church, or an ecclesiastical

benefice; and he who has the right of advowson is called the patron of

the church, from his obligation to defend the rights of the church from

oppression and violence. For when lords of manors first built churches

upon their own demesnes, and appointed the tithes of those manors to be

paid to the officiating ministers, which before were given to the clergy

in common, the lord, who thus built a church and endowed it with glebe

or land, had of common right a power annexed of nominating such minister

as he pleased (provided he were canonically qualified) to officiate in

that church, of which he was the founder, endower, maintainer, or, in

one word, the patron.

Advowsons are of two sorts, advowsons appendant, and advowsons in gross.

When annexed to a manor or land, so as to pass with them, they are

appendant; for so long as the church continues annexed to the possession

of the manor, as some have done from the foundation of the church to

this day, the patronage or presentation belongs to the person in

possession of the manor or land. But when the property of the advowson

has been once separated from that of the manor by legal conveyance, it

is called an advowson in gross, or at large, and exists as a personal

right in the person of its owner, independent of his manor or land.

Advowsons are also either presentative, collative, donative, or

elective. An advowson presentative is where the patron has a right to

present the parson to the bishop or ordinary to be instituted and

inducted, if he finds him canonically qualified. An advowson collative

is where the bishop is both patron and ordinary. An advowson donative is

where the king, or any subject by his licence, founds a church or

chapel, and ordains that it shall be merely in the gift or disposal of

the patron; subject to his visitation only, and not to that of the

ordinary; and vested absolutely in the clerk by the patron’s deed of

donation, without presentation, institution, or induction.

As to presentations to advowsons: where there are divers patrons,

joint-tenants, or tenants in common, and they vary in their presentment,

the ordinary is not bound to admit any of their clerks; and if the six

months elapse within which time they are to present, he may present by

the lapse; but he may not present within the six months; for if he do,

they may agree and bring a _quare impedit_ against him, and remove his

clerk. Where the patrons are co-parceners, the eldest sister, or her

assignee, is entitled to present; and then, at the next avoidance, the

next sister shall present, and so by turns one sister after another,

till all the sisters, or their heirs, have presented, and then the

eldest sister shall begin again, except they agree to present together,

or by composition to present in some other manner. But if the eldest

presents together with another of her sisters, and the other sisters

every one of them in their own name, or together, the ordinary is not

bound to receive any of their clerks, but may suffer the church to

lapse. But in this case, before the bishop can take advantage of the

lapse, he must direct a writ to inquire the right of patronage. Where an

advowson is mortgaged, the mortgager alone shall present, when the

church becomes vacant: and the mortgagee can derive no advantage from

the presentation in reduction of his debt. If a woman has an advowson,

or part of an advowson, to her and her heirs, and marries, the husband

may not only present jointly with his wife, during the coverture, but

also after her death the right of presenting during his life is lodged

in him, as tenant by courtesy, if he has children by her. And even

though the wife dies without having had issue by her husband, so that he

is not tenant by courtesy, and the church remains vacant at her death,

yet the husband shall present to the void turn; and if in such case he

does not present, his executor may. If a man, seized of an advowson,

takes a wife, and dies, the heir shall have two presentations, and the

wife the third, even though her husband may have granted away the third

turn. Or, if a manor, to which an advowson is appendant, descends to the

heir, and he assigns dower to his mother of the third part of the manor,

with the appurtenances, she is entitled to the presentation of the third

part of the advowson; the right of presentation being a chose in action

which is not assignable. If an advowson is sold, when the church is

vacant, it is decided that the grantee is not entitled to the benefit of

the next presentation. If, during the vacancy of a church, the patron

die, his executor, or personal representative, is entitled to that

presentation, unless it be a donative benefice, in which case the right

of donation descends to the heir. But if the incumbent of a church be

also seized in fee of the advowson of the same church, and die, his

heir, and not his executors, shall present.

As to the manner in which advowsons descend, it has been determined,

that advowsons in gross cannot descend from the brother to the sister of

the entire blood, but they shall descend to the brother of the half

blood, unless the first had presented to it in his lifetime, and then it

shall descend to the sister, she being the next heir of the entire

blood.

ÆONS. (Αίῶνες, ages.) The name given by some of the Gnostic heretics to

the spiritual beings, whom they supposed to have _emanated_ from the

Divinity. (See _Valentinus_.)

AERIANS. A small sect founded by Aërius, a presbyter of Sebaste, in the

lesser Armenia, about A. D. 355. St. Augustine tells us that Aërius, the

author of this heresy, was mortified at not attaining the episcopate;

and having fallen into the heresy of Arius, and having been led into

many strange notions by impatience of the control of the Church, he

taught, among other things, that no difference ought to be recognised

between a bishop and a presbyter; whereas, until then, even all

sectaries had acknowledged the episcopate as a superior order, and had

been careful at their outset to obtain episcopal ordination for their

ministers. Thus Aërius revenged himself upon the dignity to which he had

unsuccessfully aspired; and he has left his history and his character to

future ages, as an argument almost as forcible as direct reasoning and

evidence, of the apostolical ordinance of the episcopate.

AFFINITY. (From _affinis_.) Relation by marriage. Relation contracted by

the husband to the kindred of the wife, and by the wife to those of the

husband. It is opposed to consanguinity, or relation by

birth.—_Johnson._ (See _Consanguinity_.)

AFFUSION. Although dipping or plunging into the water were the more

ancient practice, and more universal in the primitive times, yet

sprinkling or pouring water on the head of the baptized person was of

great antiquity in the Church likewise. It had its beginning in the

cases of sick persons chiefly, who could not come to the public

baptistery, nor could the weakness of their constitution admit of their

being dipped all over in the water; and, therefore, the sprinkling or

pouring of a small quantity of water upon the face or head was judged

sufficient. In the fourth and fifth centuries aspersion was more common.

After the heathen nations were converted to Christianity, and by that

means the baptisms of adults were less frequent, the tenderness of

children’s bodies, especially in the colder countries, not enduring to

be dipped in water, the use of sprinkling generally succeeded in the

Church, instead of that of dipping. And, indeed, during the more early

ages of the Church, and when adults were frequently baptized, there were

some particular cases when aspersion was used instead of immersion; as

in that of some young women noticed by St. Chrysostom. Our Church, with

great moderation, does not totally lay aside immersion, if the strength

of the child will bear it, as indeed it seldom will without danger in

our cold country; in which case she admits aspersion only, rather than

occasion any injury or danger to the body of a tender babe; wisely

considering, that, in the sight of GOD, “mercy is better than

sacrifice.”—_Dr. Nicholls._

Either of these modes of administering baptism is sufficient. For it is

not in this spiritual washing, as it is in the bodily, where, if the

bath be not large enough to receive the whole body, some parts may be

foul, when the rest are cleansed. The soul is cleansed after another

manner; a little water can cleanse the believer, as well as a whole

river. The old fashion was to dip or sprinkle the person “thrice,” to

signify the mystery of the Trinity. The Church so appointed then because

of some heretics that denied the Trinity: upon the same ground,

afterwards, it was appointed to do it but once, (signifying the unity of

substance in the Trinity,) lest we should seem to agree with the

heretics that did it thrice. This baptizing is to be at the “font.”—_Bp.

Sparrow._

It should here be noticed, that our Church doth not direct sprinkling or

aspersion, but affusion or “pouring of water” upon the children to be

baptized. It is true the quantity of water to be used is nowhere

prescribed, nor is it necessary that it should be; but, however the

quantity be left to the minister’s discretion, yet it must be understood

to determine itself thus far: first, that the action be such as is

properly a “washing,” to make the administration correspond with the

institution; and this we should observe as ministers of CHRIST at large:

secondly, that the action be such, as is properly a “pouring of water,”

which is the rubrical direction to express that washing at all times

when “dipping” is not practised; and this we are bound to observe as

ministers of the Church of England in particular; taking it always for

granted, that there is a reason for whatever is prescribed in a rubric,

and such an one as is not to be contradicted by our private practice, or

rejected for the sake of any modes or customs brought in we know not

how.

And we should the rather keep to this rule of affusion, because we have

in a manner lost that more primitive way of baptizing by immersion.

Custom having “certified” in general, that it is the opinion and

judgment of all, who bring their children to the font, that they are

“too weak to endure dipping.” Or, if we would have their sentiments

certified more explicitly, there being a rubric to that purpose, we are

sure, as Dr. Wall observes, to find a certificate of the children’s

weakness in their dress; and to ask for further satisfaction would be a

mighty needless inquiry. I mention this observation of his, as the best

apology I know of for our present practice of baptizing by affusion,

without any formal declaration being made, according to rubric, of the

danger of “dipping.” It is not said we shall ask any questions. And,

when we are sure beforehand what would be the answer if the question

were asked, we seem under no obligation, as we are under no direction,

to put it at all.—_Archdeacon Sharp._ (See _Aspersion_.)

AGAPÆ. Love feasts, or feasts of charity, among the early Christians,

were usually celebrated in connexion with the LORD’S supper, but not as

a necessary part of it. The name is derived from the Greek word ἀγαπὴ,

which signifies love or charity. In the earliest accounts which have

come down to us, we find that the bishop or presbyter presided at these

feasts. It does not appear whether the food was dressed in the place

appointed for the celebration of the feast, or was previously prepared

by individual members of the Church at their own homes; but perhaps

either of these plans was adopted indifferently, according to

circumstances. Before eating, the guests washed their hands, and a

public prayer was offered up. A portion of Scripture was then read, and

the president proposed some questions upon it, which were answered by

the persons present. After this, any accounts which had been received

respecting the affairs of other Churches were recited; for, at that

time, such accounts were regularly transmitted from one community to

another, by means of which all Christians became acquainted with the

history and condition of the whole body, and were thus enabled to

sympathize with, and in many cases to assist, each other. Letters from

bishops and other eminent members of the Church, together with the Acts

of the Martyrs, were also recited on this occasion; and hymns or psalms

were sung. At the close of the feast, money was also collected for the

benefit of widows and orphans, the poor, prisoners, and persons who had

suffered shipwreck. Before the meeting broke up, all the members of the

Church embraced each other, in token of mutual brotherly love, and the

whole ceremony was concluded with a philanthropic prayer.

As the number of Christians increased, various deviations from the

original practice of celebration occurred; which called for the censures

of the governors of the Church. In consequence of these irregularities,

it was appointed that the president should deliver to each guest his

portion separately, and that the larger portions should be distributed

among the presbyters, deacons, and other officers of the Church.

While the Church was exposed to persecution, these feasts were not only

conducted with regularity and good order, but were made subservient to

Christian edification, and to the promotion of brotherly love, and of

that kind of concord and union which was specially demanded by the

circumstances of the times.

At first these feasts were held in private houses, or in other retired

places, where Christians met for religious worship. After the erection

of churches, these feasts were held within their walls; until, abuses

having occurred which rendered the observance inconsistent with the

sanctity of such places, this practice was forbidden. In the middle of

the fourth century, the Council of Laodicea enacted “that agapæ should

not be celebrated in churches;” a prohibition which was repeated by the

Council of Carthage, in the year 391; and was afterwards strictly

enjoined during the sixth and seventh centuries. By the efforts of

Gregory of Neocæsarea, Chrysostom, and others, a custom was generally

established of holding the agapæ only under trees, or some other

shelter, in the neighbourhood of the churches; and from that time the

clergy and other principal members of the Church were recommended to

withdraw from them altogether.

In the early Church it was usual to celebrate agapæ on the festivals of

martyrs, _agapæ natalitiæ_, at their tombs; a practice to which

reference is made in the epistle of the church of Smyrna, concerning the

martyrdom of Polycarp.

These feasts were sometimes celebrated on a smaller scale at marriages,

_agapæ connubiales_, and funerals, _agapæ funerales_.

The celebration of the agapæ was frequently made a subject of calumny

and misrepresentation by the enemies of the Christian faith, even during

the earliest and best ages of the Church. In reply to these groundless

attacks, the conduct of the Christians of those times was successfully

vindicated by Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Origen, and others. But real

disorders having afterwards arisen, and having proceeded to considerable

lengths, it became necessary to abolish the practice altogether; and

this task was eventually effected, but not without the application of

various means, and only after a considerable lapse of time.—_Riddle,

from Augusti and Siegel._

AGAPETÆ. In St. Cyprian’s time certain ascetics (who wished, perhaps, to

add to their religious celibacy the additional merit of a conquest over

a special and greater temptation) chose persons of the other sex,

devoted like themselves to a life of celibacy, with whom they lived

under the sanction of a kind of spiritual nuptials, still maintaining

their chastity, as they professed, though living, in all things else, as

freely together as married persons. These were called _Agapetæ_,

_Subintroductæ_, Συνείσακτοι. This practice, however pure in intention,

gave rise to the utmost scandal in the Church; and those who had adopted

it were condemned severely, both by the individual authority of St.

Cyprian, and afterwards by the decrees of councils. See Dodwell’s

_Dissertationes Cyprianicæ_.

AGISTMENT. The feeding of cattle in a common pasture for a stipulated

price; and hence tithe of agistment is the tithe due for the profit made

by agisting. The Irish parliament, in the last century, most

iniquitously declared that man an enemy of his country who should demand

tithe of agistment.—_Jebb._

AGNOETES or AGNOETÆ. (ἀ and γνῶμι.) A sort of Christian heretics about

the year 370, followers of Theophronius the Cappadocian, who joined

himself with Eunomius; they called in question the omniscience of GOD,

alleging that he knew not things past in any other way than by memory,

nor things to come but by an uncertain prescience.

AGNOETES. Another sort of heretics about the year 535, who followed the

errors of Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, who believed that CHRIST

knew not when the day of judgment should happen.

AGNUS DEI. A cake of wax, used in the Romish Church, stamped with the

figure of a lamb supporting the banner of the cross. The name literally

signifies _The Lamb of_ GOD. These cakes, being consecrated by the pope

with great solemnity, and distributed among the people, are supposed to

possess great virtues. They cover them with a piece of stuff, cut in the

form of a heart, and carry them very devoutly in their processions. From

selling these _Agnus_ DEIS to some, and presenting them to others, the

Romish clergy and religious officers derive considerable pecuniary

advantage. The practice of blessing the Agnus DEI took its rise about

the seventh or eighth century. It was common in those times to mark

converts with the sign of the cross after baptism; and in order to

distinguish the converted from heathens, they were commanded to wear

about their necks pieces of white wax stamped with the figure of a lamb.

This was done in imitation of the heathenish practice of hanging amulets

around the neck, as preservatives against accidents, diseases, or any

sort of infection. Though the efficacy of an Agnus DEI has not been

declared by Romish councils, the belief in its virtue has been strongly

and universally established in the Church of Rome. Pope Urban V. sent to

John Palæologus, emperor of the Greeks, an Agnus folded in fine paper,

on which were written verses explaining all its properties. These verses

declare that the Agnus is formed of balm and wax mixed with chrism, and

that being consecrated by mystical words, it possesses the power of

removing thunder and dispersing storms, of giving to women with child an

easy delivery, of preventing shipwreck, taking away sin, repelling the

devil, increasing riches, and of securing against fire.

AISLE. (_Ala._) The lateral divisions of a church, or of any part of it,

as nave, choir, or transept, are called its aisles. (See _Church_.)

Where there is but one aisle to a transept, it is always at the east. In

foreign churches the number of aisles is frequently two on either side

of the nave and choir; at Cologne there are three. This arrangement is

very ancient, since it is found in the Basilicas of St. John, Lateran,

and St. Paul, at Rome. In England this was never perhaps the original

plan. All, except one on each side, are clearly additions at Chichester,

Manchester, St. Michael’s, Coventry, Spalding, and several other

churches.

The last bay to the west, or that westward of the porch in the south

aisle, is generally a little earlier in character than the rest. It

frequently happens, too, that the north aisle is of an earlier type than

the south, where there is no reason to suppose them of different dates.

There is no sufficient reason assigned for this. The word has been very

commonly, but incorrectly, applied to the open space in the nave of

churches between the seats of the congregation.

AISE. A linen napkin to cover the chalice used in Bishop Andrew’s

chapel, and in Canterbury cathedral, before the rebellion. See

_Canterbury’s Doom_, 1646, _Neale’s Hist. of Puritans_.

ALB. An ample linen tunic with sleeves, named from its colour, (_albus_,

white,) worn next over the cassock and amice. It was at first loose and

flowing, afterwards bound with a zone, mystically signifying continence,

according to some ritualists; but more probably for the greater

convenience of ministering at the communion office. It has been in other

points considerably altered from its primitive form in the continental

churches subject to Rome; in the Greek churches it more nearly resembles

the form of the surplice used in the English Church. Cardinal Bona

admits that the alb, as well as the surplice, was anciently _talaris_,

that is, reaching to the feet, and it was therefore called _podéris_ in

the Greek Church. It was made originally of white linen; and was

probably the same as the surplice, from which it now differs only in the

form of the sleeves, which are not flowing, but closed at the wrists.

The rubrics of King Edward VI.’s First Book prescribed the alb to be

worn at the communion by the principal minister and his assistants, and

by the bishop at all times of his public ministrations. These rubrics

are referred to in our present Prayer Book, in the notice preceding the

Morning Prayer: “And here it is to be noted, that such ornaments of the

Church, and of the ministers thereof at all times of their

ministrations, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of

England by the authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign

of King Edward VI.” Most of our most eminent ritualists, and

constitutional lawyers, have considered the rubric of King Edward VI. as

still binding in strictness of law. The 58th Canon apparently, but not

really, contradicts these rubrics, as it prescribes a _surplice with

sleeves_, to be used at the communion as well as at other services. But

it is to be observed that an alb is, in fact, a surplice with sleeves;

and by these very rubrics the terms seem to be almost convertible, as

the bishop is enjoined to wear a _surplice_ or _alb_: and in the rubric

after the communion, regulating the Wednesday and Friday services, the

priest is to wear a plain _alb or surplice_. But even if the canon did

contradict the rubric, it ought to be remembered that the rubric of 1662

is the final enactment of the Church, and plainly ought to supersede the

enactment of 1604. The English alb is enjoined to be _plain_, that is,

not ornamental with lace, or gold, as was the mediæval custom.—_Jebb._

ALBATI. A sort of Christian hermits (so called from the white linen

which they wore). Anno 1399, in the time of Pope Boniface IX., they came

down from the Alps into several provinces of Italy, having for their

guide a priest clothed all in white, and a crucifix in his hand: he

pretended so much zeal and religion, that he was taken for a saint, and

his followers multiplied so fast, that the pope, growing jealous of

their leader’s aiming at his chair, sent soldiers, who apprehended and

put him to death, upon which his followers dispersed. They professed

sorrow and weeping for the sins and calamities of the times, they ate

together in the highways, and slept promiscuously like beasts.

ALBIGENSES. Certain religionists who sprung up in the twelfth century.

They received their name from a town in Aquitaine, called Albigia or

Alby, where their tenets were first condemned in a council held in the

year 1176. The Albigenses grew so formidable, that the court of Rome

determined upon a league or crusade against them. Pope Innocent III.,

desirous to put a stop to their progress, stirred up the great men of

France to make war upon them. After suffering cruelly from their

persecutors, they dwindled by little and little, till the time of the

Reformation; when such of them as were left fell in with the Vaudois,

and conformed to the doctrine of Zuinglius and the disciples of Geneva.

The Albigenses have been frequently confounded with the Waldenses; from

whom however it is said that they differed in many respects, both as

being prior to them in point of time, as having their origin in a

different country, and as being charged with divers heresies,

particularly Manicheism, from which the Waldenses were exempt.

ALBIS (_Dominica in_). See _Low Sunday_.

ALIENATION, ecclesiastically speaking, is the improper disposal of such

lands and goods as have become the property of the Church. These being

looked upon as devoted to GOD and his service, to part with them, or

divert them to any other use, may be considered as no less than the sin

of sacrilege. Upon some extraordinary occasions, however, as the

redemption of captives from slavery, or the relief of the poor in the

time of famine, this was permitted; in which cases it was not unusual to

sell even the sacred vessels and utensils of the church. Some canons, if

the annual income of the church was not sufficient to maintain the

clergy, allowed the bishop to sell certain goods of the church for that

purpose. By subsequent canons, however, this was prevented, unless the

consent of the clergy was obtained, and the sanction of the

metropolitan, lest, under the pretence of necessity or charity, any

spoil or devastation should be made on the revenues of the church. See

_Bing. Orig. Eccl._ lib. v. ch. vi. s. 6.

ALIENATION IN MORTMAIN, is the conveying or making over lands or

tenements to any religious house or other corporate body.

ALLELUIA, or HALLELUJAH. This is a Hebrew word signifying _Praise the_

LORD, or _Praise to the_ LORD. It occurs at the beginning and at the end

of many of the Psalms, and was always sung by the Jews on solemn days of

rejoicing. An expression very similar in sound seems to have been used

in many nations, who can hardly be supposed to have borrowed it from the

Jews. Hence it has been supposed to be one of the most ancient words of

devotion. St. John retains the word without translation (Rev. xix. 1, 3,

4, 6); and among the early Christians it was so usual to sing

_Hallelujah_, that St. Jerome says little children were acquainted with

it.

In evident imitation of the Jewish custom, the Church has from very

early times, at least during the season of Easter, preceded the daily

Psalms with _Alleluia_, or _Praise ye the LORD_. In the Roman and

unreformed offices it was disused during certain penitential seasons;

while Alleluia was used in other parts of the service also during the

Easter season, &c. In the First Book of King Edward VI., Allelujah was

sung after “Praise ye the Lord,” from Easter to Trinity Sunday. The

response, “The Lord’s name be praised,” was added at the last review. It

had been inserted in the Scotch Liturgy in King Charles I.’s time. (See

_Gloria Patri_.)—_Jebb._

ALL SAINTS’ DAY. The festival of All Saints is not of very high

antiquity. About the year 610, the bishop of Rome ordered that the

heathen Pantheon, a temple dedicated to all the gods, should be

converted into a Christian church. This was done, and it was

appropriately dedicated to the honour of All Martyrs; hence came the

origin of All Saints, which was then celebrated on the first of May. In

the year 834 it was changed to November 1st, on which day it is still

observed. Our Church having, in the course of her year, celebrated the

memories of the holy apostles, and the other most eminent saints and

martyrs of the first days of the gospel, deems it unnecessary to extend

her calendar by any other particular festivals, but closes her course

with this general one. It should be the Christian’s delight, on this

day, to reflect, as he is moved by the appointed scriptures, on the

Christian graces and virtues which have been exhibited by that goodly

fellowship of saints who, in all ages, have honoured GOD in their lives,

and glorified him in their deaths; he should pray for grace to follow

them “in all virtuous and godly living;” he should meditate on the

glorious rest that remains for the people of GOD, on which they have

entered; he should gratefully contemplate that communion of saints which

unites him to their holy fellowship, even while he is here militant, if

he be a faithful disciple of the SAVIOUR in whom they trusted; he should

earnestly seek that grace whereby, after a short further time of trial,

he may be united with them in the everlasting services of the Church

triumphant. The Church of England seems to have been induced to sum up

the commemoration of martyrs, confessors, doctors, and saints in this

one day’s service, from the circumstance of the great number of such

days in the Church of Rome having led to gross abuses, some of which are

enumerated in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer.

This day was popularly called “Allhallows day.” “Hallow E’en” in

Scotland, and “Holy Eve” in Ireland, means the eve of all Saints’ Day.

This day is celebrated as a high festival, or _scarlet_ day, at the

Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

ALL SOULS. A festival or holiday of the Romish Church, on which special

prayers are made for the benefit of the souls of the departed. Its

observance has been traced back to the year 998; about which time, we

are told, a certain monk, whose curiosity had led him to visit Mount

Ætna, which he, in common with others of that age, verily believed to be

the mouth of hell, returned to his abbot with the grave story that he

had overheard “the devils within complain, that many departed souls were

taken out of their hands by the prayers of the Cluniac monks.” (See

_Clugni_.) The compassionate abbot took the hint, and set apart the

second day of November, to be annually kept by his monks as a day of

prayer for _All Souls_ departed. This local appointment was afterwards

changed by the pope into a general one, obligatory on all the Western

Churches. The ceremonies observed on this day were in good keeping with

the purpose of its institution. In behalf of the dead, persons arrayed

in black perambulated the cities and towns, each provided with a loud

and dismal-toned bell, which they rang in public places by way of

exhortation to the people to remember the souls in purgatory, and give

them the aid of their prayers. In France and Italy, at the present day,

the annual _Jour des Morts_ is observed, by the population resuming

their mourning habits, and visiting the graves of their friends for many

years after their decease. At the period of the Reformation, the Church

of England abrogated altogether the observance of this day, as based on

false doctrine, and as originating in a falsehood.

ALMONER. An officer in monasteries, who had the care of the Almonry. In

the cathedral of St. Paul, London, the Almoner had the distribution of

the alms, and the care of the burial of the poor. He also educated eight

boys in music and in literature, for the service of the Church. The

office afterwards was practically that of a Chori-master, or Master of

the Boys, and was usually held by a Vicar Choral. See _Dugdale’s History

of St. Paul’s_.

The Lord High Almoner is a Prelate, who has the disposing of the King’s

Alms, and of other sums accruing to the Crown. Till King James I.’s

accession, when the office of Dean of the Chapel Royal was revived, he

had the care of the King’s Chapel; his office being then analogous to

that of the Grand Almoner of France. See _Heylin’s Life of Laud_.

ALMONRY. A room where alms were distributed, generally near to the

church, or a part of it. The Almonries in the principal monasteries were

often great establishments, with endowments specially appropriated to

their sustentation, having a chapel, hall, and chambers for the

accommodation of the poor and infirm. The remains of the Almonry at

Canterbury, for example, are extensive and interesting.—_Jebb._

ALMS. In the primitive Church, the people who were of sufficient

substance used to give alms to the poor every Sunday, as they entered

the church. And the poor, who were approved and selected by the deacons

or other ministers, were exhorted to stand before the church doors to

ask for alms, as the lame man, who was healed by Peter and John, at the

Beautiful Gate of the temple. The order in our Church is, that these

alms should be collected at that part of the communion service which is

called the Offertory, while the sentences are in reading which follow

the place appointed for the sermon. The intention of the compilers of

our service was, that these alms should be collected every Sunday, as is

plain from the directions in the rubric; and this, whether there was a

communion or not. It is much to be regretted that the decay of charity

has caused this good custom to fall into too general disuse; and it is

one which all sincere churchmen should endeavour to restore. The alms

are, and have immemorially been, collected every Sunday in Ireland.

ALMS-CHEST. Besides the alms collected at the offertory, it may be

supposed that devout persons would make contributions to the poor on

entering the church, or departing from it, at evening service; and to

receive these alms, it is appointed by the 84th Canon, that a chest be

provided and placed in the church.

ALOGIANS. Heretics in the second century, who denied the Divine Logos,

or Word, and attributed the writings of St. John, in which the Second

Person of the Godhead is so styled, to Cerinthus.

ALTAR. Altar was the name by which the holy board was constantly

distinguished for the first three hundred years after CHRIST; during all

which time it does not appear that it was above once called “table,” and

that was in a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Xystus of Rome. And

when, in the fourth century, Athanasius called it a “table,” he thought

himself obliged to explain the word, and to let the reader know that by

_table_ he meant _altar_, that being then the constant and familiar

name. Afterwards, indeed, both names came to be promiscuously used; the

one having respect to the _oblation_ of the eucharist, the other to the

_participation_: but it was always placed altar-wise in the most sacred

part of the church, and fenced in with rails to secure it from

irreverence and disrespect.—_Wheatly._

In King Edward’s first service-book the word _altar_ was permitted to

stand, as being the name that Christians for many hundred years had been

acquainted withal. Therefore, when there was such pulling down of altars

and setting up of tables in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, she was fain to

make an injunction to restrain such ungodly fury, and appointed decent

and comely tables covered to be set up again in the same place where the

altars stood, thereby giving an interpretation of this clause in our

communion-book. For the word “table” here stands not exclusively, as if

it might not be called an altar, but to show the indifferency and

liberty of the name; as of old it was called “mensa DOMINI,” the table

of the LORD; the one having reference to the participation, the other to

the oblation, of the eucharist.—_Bp. Cosin._

It is called an _altar_, 1. Because, the holy eucharist being considered

as a sacrifice, we offer up the commemoration of that sacrifice which

was offered upon the cross. 2. We offer, with the action, prayers to GOD

for all good things, and we need not fear to call the whole action by

the name of a sacrifice, seeing part of it is an oblation to GOD of

hearty prayers, and it is not unusual for that to be said of the whole,

which is exactly true but of one part; and as the word _sacrifice_ may

be used without danger, so also the ancient Church did understand it.

And it is called a _table_, the eucharist being considered as a

sacrament; which is nothing else but a distribution and application of

the sacrifice to the receivers; and the proper use of a table is to set

food upon, and to entertain guests, both which are applicable to

this.—_Clutterbuck._

But at the beginning of the Reformation an unhappy dispute arose, viz.

whether those tables of the altar fashion, which had been used in the

Popish times, and on which masses had been celebrated, should still be

continued? This point was first started by Bishop Hooper, who in a

sermon before the king, in the third year of his reign, declared, “that

it were well, if it might please the magistrate to have altars turned

into tables; to take away the false persuasion of the people, which they

have of sacrifice, to be done upon altars; because as long,” says he,

“as altars remain, both the ignorant people and priests will dream of

sacrifice.” This occasioned not only a couple of letters from the king

and council, one of which was sent to all the bishops, and the other to

Ridley, bishop of London, in both which they were required to pull down

the altars; but also that, when the liturgy was reviewed in 1551, the

above-said rubric was altered, and in the room of it the priest was

directed to stand on the north side of the table. But this did not put

an end to the controversy. Another dispute arising, viz. whether the

table, placed in the room of the altar, ought to stand altar-wise; i. e.

in the same place and situation as the altar formerly stood? This was

the occasion that in some churches the tables were placed in the middle

of the chancels, in others at the east part thereof, next to the wall.

Bishop Ridley endeavoured to compromise this matter, and therefore, in

St. Paul’s cathedral, suffered the table to stand in the place of the

old altar; but beating down the wainscot partition behind, laid all the

choir open to the east, leaving the table then to stand in the middle of

the chancel. Under this diversity of usage, things went on till the

death of King Edward; when, Queen Mary coming to the throne, altars were

again restored wherever they had been demolished; but her reign proving

short, and Queen Elizabeth succeeding her, the people, (just got free

again from the tyranny of Popery,) through a mistaken zeal fell in a

tumultuous manner to the pulling down of altars; though, indeed, this

happened for the generality only in private churches, they not being

meddled with in any of the queen’s palaces, and in but very few of the

cathedrals. And as soon as the queen was sensible of what had happened

in other places, she put out an injunction to restrain the fury of the

people, declaring it to be no matter of great moment, whether there were

altars or tables, so that the sacrament was duly and reverently

administered; but ordering, that where altars were taken down, holy

tables should be decently made, and set in the place where the altars

stood, and so to stand, saving when the communion of the sacrament was

to be distributed; at which time the same was to be so placed in good

sort within the chancel, as thereby the minister might be more

conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration,

and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number

communicate with the said minister. And after the communion, done from

time to time, the same holy table was to be placed where it stood

before. Pursuant hereunto, this part of the present rubric was added to

the liturgy, in the first year of her reign, viz. that “the table, at

the communion time, having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand

in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where morning and evening

prayer are appointed to be said:” which was in those times generally in

the choir. But then it is plain from the aforesaid injunction, as well

as from the eighty-second Canon of the Church, (which is almost verbatim

the same,) that there is no obligation arising from this rubric to move

the table at the time of the communion, unless the people cannot

otherwise conveniently hear and communicate. The injunction declares,

that the holy tables are to be set in the same place where the altars

stood, which every one knows was at the east end of the chancel. And

when both the injunction and canon speak of its being moved at the time

of the communion, it supposes that the minister could not otherwise be

heard: the interposition of a belfry between the chancel and body of the

church hindering the minister in some churches from being heard by the

people, if he continued in the church. And with the same view seems this

rubric to have been added, and which therefore lays us under no

obligation to move the table, unless necessity requires. But whenever

the churches are built so as the minister can be heard, and conveniently

administer the sacrament at the place where the table usually stands, he

is rather obliged to administer in the chancel, (that being the _sanctum

sanctorum_, or most holy place, of the church,) as appears from the

rubric before the Commandments, as also from that before the Absolution,

by both which rubrics the priest is directed to turn himself to the

people. From whence I argue, that if the table be in the middle of the

church, and the people consequently round about the minister, the

minister cannot turn himself to the people any more at one time than

another. Whereas, if the table be close to the east wall, the minister

stands on the north side, and looks southward, and consequently, by

looking westward, turns himself to the people.—_Wheatly._

Great dispute has been raised in the last age about the name of the

communion table, whether it was to be called the Holy Table or an Altar.

And indeed anything will afford matter of controversy to men in a

disputing age. For the ancient writers used both names indifferently;

some calling it Altar, others the Lord’s Table, the Holy Table, the

Mystical Table, the Tremendous Table, &c., and sometimes both Table and

Altar in the same sentence ... Ignatius uses only the name θυσιαστήριον,

_altar_, in his genuine Epistles ... Irenæus and Origen use the same

name ... Tertullian frequently applies to it the name of Ara Dei and

Altare ... Cyprian uses both names; but most commonly Altar ... It is

certain they did not mean by the altar what the Jews and heathens meant;

either an altar dressed up with images, or an altar for bloody

sacrifices. In the first sense they rejected altars, both name and

thing. But for their own mystical, unbloody sacrifice, as they called

the eucharist, they always owned they had an altar.... In Chrysostom it

is most usually termed, “the mystical and tremendous table,” &c. St.

Austin usually gives it the name of Mensa Domini, the Lord’s Table. It

were easy to add a thousand other testimonies, where the altar is called

the Holy Table, to signify to us their notion of the Christian sacrifice

and altar at once, that it was mystical and spiritual, and had no

relation either to the bloody sacrifices of the Jews, or the idolatries

of the Gentiles, but served only for the service of the eucharist, and

the oblations of the people.—_Bingham._

In the First Book of King Edward, the terms used for this holy table are

the _Altar_, and _God’s Board_. In our present Prayer Book, it is styled

the _Table_, the _Holy Table_, and the _Lord’s Table_. The phrase

communion table occurs in the Canons only, as in the 20th, and the 82nd.

The word altar is used in the Coronation Service. It is employed without

scruple by Bishop Overall, one of the commissioners for the revision of

the Liturgy in King James I.’s reign, and by those who were employed in

the last Review in 1662, who of course understood the real spirit of the

Church of England. For example, the following are the words of Bishop

Sparrow, one of the Reviewers.

“That no man take offence at the word _Altar_, let him know, that

anciently both these names, _Altar_, or _Holy Table_, were used for the

same thing; though most frequently the fathers and councils use the word

_Altar_. And both are fit names for that holy thing. For the holy

eucharist being considered as a _sacrifice_, in the representation of

the breaking of the bread, and pouring forth of the cup, doing that to

the holy symbols which was done to Christ’s body and blood, and so

showing forth and commemorating the Lord’s death, and offering upon it

the same sacrifice that was offered upon the cross, or rather the

commemoration of that sacrifice, (St. Chrysost. in Heb. x. 9,) it may

fitly be called an _Altar_; which again is as fitly called an _Holy

Table_, the Eucharist being considered as a _Sacrament_, which is

nothing else but a distribution and application of the sacrifice to the

several receivers.”

And Bishop Cosins, who (_Nicholl’s_ add. notes, p. 42) speaks of the

king and queen presenting their offering “on their knees at God’s

altar:” though he adds afterwards, (p. 50,) on the passage “This our

sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,”—“In which regard and divers

others besides, the eucharist may by allusion, analogy, and extrinsical

denomination, 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 called.... 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, which are performed in recognition and memory of

Christ’s own sacrifice, once offered upon the altar of his cross.”

Again, Bishop _Beveridge, on the necessity, &c., of frequent communion_,

uses the word; “Upon Sundays and holy days, although there be not such a

number, and therefore no communion, yet, however, the priest shall go up

to the _altar_,” &c.

And Bishop Bull (_Charge to the Clergy of St. David’s_): “Before the

priest goes to the _altar_ to read the second service,” &c.

Hence, though not presuming to dispute the wisdom of the Reviewers, or,

to speak more reverently, the dispositions of God’s providence, whereby

the use of the word altar was withheld from our Prayer Book, there can

be no doubt that the employment of the word can be justified, if we

understand it as the ancient Church understood it.—_Jebb._

According to Bingham, the ancient altars were of wood; and he considers

that the fashion of stone altars began in the time of Constantine. Stone

altars were enjoined by the Council of Epone, (or Albon,) in France, A.

D. 509 or 517; and throughout the whole of the time to which we look for

architectural examples, altars were of stone.

The place of the high altar was uniformly, in England at least, at the

east of the church; but in large churches room is left for processions

to pass behind it, and in cathedral churches of Norman foundation for

the bishop’s throne. Where the end of the church was apsidal, the high

altar was placed in the chord of the apse. Chantry altars, not being

connected with a service in which processions were used, were placed

against the wall, and scarcely an aisle or a transept was without one or

more. In form the high altar was generally large and plain, relying for

decoration wholly on the rich furniture with which it was loaded; very

rarely its front was panelled or otherwise ornamented. Chantry altars

were, perhaps, in ninety-nine cases in a hundred, mere slabs built into

the wall. At Jervaulx, however, at the end of each aisle, is a large

plain altar built up of separate stones, much in the form of a high

tomb. _In situ_ but few high altars remain, but chantry altars _in situ_

are frequent enough. They are not, however, often found in the aisles

and transepts of our churches, but in places where they would more

readily escape observation, as, for instance, under the east window (or

forming its sill) of a vestry, or of a parvise, or in a gateway to a

monastery, or in private chapels and chapels of castles. Altar stones

not _in situ_, but used in pavements and all places, are almost

innumerable, sometimes two or three or more occurring in a single small

church. They may be recognised by five little crosses, one in the

centre, and one at each corner. The multiplication of altars in the same

church is still strictly forbidden in the Eastern Church, as it was in

ancient times. (Vide _Bingham_, book viii. c. 6, § 16.)—_Poole._

ALTARAGE, a legal term used to denote the profits arising to the priest

or parson of the parish on account of the altar, called _obventio

altaris_. Since the Reformation there has been much dispute as to the

extent of the vicar’s claim upon tithes as altarage. In the 21st Eliz.

it was decided that the words _Alteragium cum manso competenti_ would

entitle him to the small tithes; but it has since been holden and now

generally understood, that the extent of the altarage depends entirely

upon usage and the manner of endowment.

ALTAR CLOTH. By the 82nd Canon it is appointed that the table provided

for the celebration of the holy communion shall be covered, in time of

divine service, with a carpet of silk, or other decent stuff thought

meet by the ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it; and

with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, as becometh

that table. The sovereigns of England, at their coronation, present, as

their first oblation, a pall or altar cloth of gold, &c.

ALTAR PIECE. A picture placed over the altar. It is not uncommon in

English churches to place paintings over the altar, although it is a

practice of modern introduction, and although there would be a prejudice

against placing paintings in other parts of the church. The English

Reformers were very strongly opposed to the introduction of paintings

into the sanctuary. In Queen Elizabeth’s reign, a proclamation was

issued against pictures as well as images in churches; and Dean Nowell

fell under her Majesty’s displeasure for procuring for her use a Prayer

Book with pictures. The Puritans, who formed the religious world of King

Charles’s time, both in the Church and out of it, destroyed pictures

wherever they could find them, as relics of Popery. We may add that the

feeling against pictures prevailed not only in modern times, but in the

first ages of the primitive Church. In the various catalogues of church

furniture that we possess, we never read of pictures. There is a

particular breviat of the things found by the persecutors in the church

of Paul, bishop of Cirta, in Numidia, (A. D. 303,) where we find mention

made of cups, flagons, two candlesticks, and vestments; but of images

and pictures there is not a syllable. In Spain, at the Council of

Eliberis, A. D. 305, there was a positive decree against them. And, at

the end of this century, Epiphanius, passing through Anablatha, a

village of Palestine, found a veil there, hanging before the doors of

the sanctuary in the church, whereon was painted the image of CHRIST, or

some saint, which he immediately tore in pieces, and gave it as a

winding-sheet for the poor, himself replacing the hanging by one from

Cyprus. The first mention of pictures we find at the close of the fourth

century; when Paulinus, bishop of Nola, to keep the country people

employed, when they came together to observe the festival of the

dedication of the church of St. Felix, ordered the church to be painted

with the images of saints, and stories from Scripture history, such as

those of Esther and Job, and Tobit and Judith. (_Paulinus_, _Natal. 9.

Felicis_, p. 615.) The reader will find a learned historical

investigation of this subject in note B to the translation of

Tertullian’s Apology in the _Library of the Fathers_, which is thus

summed up: 1. In the first three centuries it is positively stated that

Christians had no images. 2. Private individuals had pictures, but it

was discouraged. (_Aug._) 3. The cross, not the crucifix, was used; the

first mention of the cross in a church is in the time of Constantine. 4.

The first mention of pictures in churches, except to forbid them, is at

the end of the fourth century, and these historical pictures from the

Old Testament, or of martyrdoms, not of individuals. 5. No account of

any picture of our LORD being publicly used occurs in the six first

centuries; the first is A. D. 600. 6. Outward reverence to pictures is

condemned. We find frequent allusion to pictures in the writings of St.

Augustine. We thus see that the use of pictures in churches is to be

traced to the fourth century; and we may presume that the practice of

the age, when the Church was beginning to breathe after its severe

persecutions, when the great creed of the Church Universal was drawn up,

and when the canon of Scripture was fixed, is sufficient to sanction the

use of pictures in our sanctuaries. That in the middle ages, pictures as

well as images were sometimes worshipped, as they are by many Papists in

the present day, is not to be denied. It was therefore natural that the

Reformers, seeing the abuse of the thing, should be strongly prejudiced

against the retention of pictures in our churches. But much of Romish

error consists in the abuse of what was originally good or true. We may,

in the present age, return to the use of what was originally good; but

being warned that what has led to Popish corruptions may lead to them

again, we must be very careful to watch against the recurrence of those

evil practices to which these customs have been abused or perverted.

ALTAR RAILS, as such, and as distinguished from the chancel screen, were

not known in the Western Church before the Reformation. We probably owe

them to Archbishop Laud, who, in order to guard against a continuance of

the profanations to which the holy table had been subjected, while

standing in the nave of the church, or in the middle of the chancel,

ordered that it should be placed at the east end of the chancel, and

protected from rude approach by rails. As the use of altar rails arose

out of, and visibly signified respect for, the great mysteries

celebrated at the altar, they were, of course, a mark for the hostility

of the Puritans; and accordingly, in the journal of William Dowsing,

parliamentary visitor of churches in the great rebellion, we find that

they were everywhere destroyed. They have generally, however, been

restored; and there are now few churches in England where they are not

found. In the East, the altar has been enclosed by a screen or an

enclosure resembling our rails, from ancient times. These were at first

only the cancelli, or κίγκλιδες, or, as Eusebius styles them,

_reticulated_ wood-work. They were afterwards enlarged into the holy

doors, which now wholly conceal the altar, and which Goar admits to be

an innovation of later times. (pp. 17, 18.) These are not to be

confounded with the enclosure of the choir; which, like the chancel

screen, was originally very low, a mere barrier, but was enlarged

afterwards into the high screens which now shut out the choir from the

church.—_Jebb._

ALTAR SCREEN. A screen behind the altar, bounding the presbytery

eastward, and in our larger churches separating it from the parts left

free for processions between the presbytery and the Lady Chapel, when

the latter is at the east end. (See _Cathedral_.) These screens were of

comparatively late invention. They completely interfered with the

ancient arrangement of the _Apsis_. (See _Apsis_.) The most magnificent

specimens of altar screens are at Winchester cathedral, and at St.

Alban’s abbey. In college chapels, and churches where an apse would be

altogether out of place, and where an east window cannot be inserted, as

at New College, and Magdalene, Oxford, they are as appropriate as they

are beautiful.—_Jebb._

AMBO. A kind of raised platform or reading desk, from which, in the

primitive Church, the Gospel and Epistle were read to the people, and

sometimes used in preaching. Its position appears to have varied at

different times; it was most frequently on the north side of the

entrance into the chancel. Sometimes there was one on each side, one for

the Epistle, the other for the Gospel, as may still be seen in the

ancient churches of St. Clement and St. Lawrence, at Rome, &c. The word

Ambo has been popularly employed for a reading desk within memory, as in

Limerick cathedral, where the desk for the lessons in the centre of the

choir was so called. The singers also had their separate ambo, and in

many of the foreign European churches it is employed by the precentor

and principal singers; being placed in the middle of the choir, like an

eagle, but turned towards the altar.—_Jebb._

AMBROSIAN OFFICE. A particular office used in the church of Milan. It

derives its name from St. Ambrose, who was bishop of Milan in the fourth

century, although it is not certain that he took any part in its

composition. Originally each church had its particular office; and even

when Pope Pius V. took upon him to impose the Roman office on all the

Western churches, that of Milan sheltered itself under the name and

authority of St. Ambrose, and the Ambrosian Ritual has continued in

use.—_Brouqhton, Gueranger._

AMEDIEU, or Friends of GOD. A kind of religious congregation in the

Church of Rome, who wore grey clothes and wooden shoes, had no breeches,

girding themselves with a cord; they began in 1400, and grew numerous;

but Pius V. united their society partly with that of the Cistercians,

and partly with the Soccolanti.—_Jebb._

AMEN. This, in the phraseology of the Church, is denominated _orationis

signaculum_, or _devotæ conscionis responsio_, the token for prayer—the

response of the worshippers. It intimates that the prayer of the speaker

is heard, and approved by him who gives this response. It is also used

at the conclusion of a doxology. (Rom. ix. 5.) Justin Martyr is the

first of the fathers who speaks of the use of the response. In speaking

of the sacrament he says, that, at the close of the benediction and

prayer, all the assembly respond, “Amen,” which, in the Hebrew tongue,

is the same as, “So let it be.” According to Tertullian, none but the

faithful were permitted to join in the response.

In the celebration of the LORD’S supper especially, each communicant was

required to give this response in a tone of earnest devotion. Upon the

reception, both of the bread and of the wine, each uttered a loud

“Amen;” and at the close of the consecration by the priest, all joined

in shouting a loud “Amen.” But the practice was discontinued after the

sixth century.

At the administration of baptism also, the witnesses and sponsors

uttered this response in the same manner. In the Greek Church it was

customary to repeat this response as follows: “This servant of the LORD

is baptized in the name of the FATHER, Amen; and of the SON, Amen; and

of the HOLY GHOST, Amen; both now and for ever, world without end;” to

which the people responded, “Amen.” This usage is still observed by the

Greek Church in Russia. The repetitions were given thrice, with

reference to the three persons of the Trinity.—_Coleman’s Christian

Antiquities._

It signifies truly or verily. Its import varies slightly with the

connexion or position in which it is placed. In the New Testament it is

frequently synonymous with “verily,” and is retained in some versions

without being translated. At the conclusion of prayer, as the Catechism

teaches, it signifies _So be it_; after the repetition of the Creed it

means _So it is_.

It will be observed, that the word “Amen” is at the end of some prayers,

the Creed, &c., printed in the same Roman letter, but of others, and

indeed generally, in Italics—“_Amen_.” This seems not to be done without

meaning, though unfortunately the distinction is not correctly observed

in all the modern Prayer Books. The intention, according to Wheatly, is

this: At the end of all the collects and prayers, which the priest is to

repeat or say alone, it is printed in Italic, a different character from

the prayers themselves, probably to denote that the minister is to stop

at the end of the prayer, and to leave the “Amen” for the people to

respond. But at the end of the LORD’S Prayer, Confessions, Creeds, &c.,

and wheresoever the people are to join aloud with the minister, as if

taught and instructed by him what to say, there it is printed in Roman,

i. e. in the same character with the Confessions and Creeds themselves,

as a hint to the minister that he is still to go on, and by pronouncing

the “Amen” himself, to direct the people to do the same, and so to set

their seal at last to what they had been before pronouncing.

AMERICA. (See _Church in America_.)

AMICE. An oblong square of fine linen used as a vestment in the ancient

Church by the priest. At first introduced to cover the shoulders and

neck, it afterwards received the addition of a hood to cover the head

until the priest came before the altar, when the hood was thrown back.

We have the remains of this in the hood.

The “grey amice,” a tippet or cape of fur, was retained for a time by

the English clergy after the Reformation; but, as there was no express

authority for this, it was prohibited by the bishops in the reign of

Elizabeth.

The word _Amice_ is sometimes used with greater latitude. Thus Milton,

(_Par. Reg._ iv.,)

——morning fair

Came forth, with pilgrim steps, in _amice_ grey.

By most ritualists, the _Amictus_, or _Amicia_, and the _Almutium_, of

the Western Churches were considered the same. But W. Gilbert French, in

an interesting and curiously illustrated Essay on “The Tippets of the

Canons Ecclesiastical,” considers that there is a distinction between

the _amice_ and the _almuce_. The former he identifies with the

definition given above. The latter he considers to be the choir tippet,

worn by all members of cathedral churches, of materials varying with the

ecclesiastical rank of the wearer. The hood part of the almuce was in

the course of time disused, and a square cap substituted; and the

remaining parts gave rise to the modern cape, worn in foreign churches,

and to the ornament resembling the stole, like the ordinary scarf worn

in our churches. The almuce, or “aumusse,” is now an ornament of fur or

other materials carried over the arm by the canons of many French and

other continental cathedrals. In the _Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique_

(Lymr. 1787) it is defined as an ornament which was first borne on the

head, afterwards carried on the arm. Cardinal Bona only mentions the

_amictus_, describing it as in the first paragraph of this article. He

identifies it, but certainly without any reason, with the Jewish ephod.

There seems nothing improbable in the various terms above mentioned

having been originally identical. (See _Band_, _Hood_, _Scarf_, and

_Tippet_.)—_Jebb._

AMPHIBALUM. (See _Chasible_.)

ANABAPTISTS. (See _Baptists_.) Certain sectaries whose title is

compounded of two Greek words, (ἀνα and βαπτιζω,) one of which signifies

“anew,” and the other “to baptize;” and whose distinctive tenet it is,

that those who have been baptized in their infancy ought to be baptized

_anew_.

John of Leyden, Münzer, Knipperdoling, and other German enthusiasts

about the time of the Reformation, were called by this name, and held

that CHRIST was not the son of Mary, nor true GOD; that we were

righteous by our own merits and sufferings, that there was no original

sin, and that infants were not to be baptized. They rejected, also,

communion with other churches, magistracy, and oaths; maintained a

communion of goods, polygamy, and that a man might put away his wife if

not of the same religion with himself; that the godly should enjoy

monarchy here on earth; that man had a free will in spiritual things;

and that any man might preach and administer the sacraments. The

Anabaptists of Moravia called themselves apostolical, going barefoot,

washing one another’s feet, and having community of goods; they had a

common steward, who distributed equally things necessary; they admitted

none but such as would get their livelihood by working at some trade;

they had a common father for their spirituals, who instructed them in

their religion, and prayed with them every morning before they went

abroad; they had a general governor of the church, whom none knew but

themselves, they being obliged to keep it secret. They would be silent a

quarter of an hour before meat, covering their faces with their hands,

and meditating, doing the like after meat, their governor observing them

in the mean time, to reprove what was amiss; they were generally clad in

black, discoursing much of the last judgment, pains of hell, and cruelty

of devils, teaching that the way to escape these was to be rebaptized,

and to embrace their religion. They caused considerable disturbance in

Germany, but were at length subdued. To this sect allusion is made in

our 38th Article. By the present Anabaptists in England, the tenets

subversive of civil government are no longer professed.

The practice of rebaptizing proselytes was used by some ancient

heretics, and other sectaries, as by the Montanists, the Novatians, and

the Donatists. In the third century, the Church was much agitated by the

question whether baptism received out of the Catholic communion ought to

be acknowledged, or whether converts to the Church ought to be

rebaptized. Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and the Africans generally, held

that baptism without the Church was null, as did also Firmilian, bishop

of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and the Asiatics of his time. On this account,

Stephen, bishop of Rome, declined communion with the Churches of Africa

and of the East. To meet the difficulty, a method was devised by the

Council of Arles, Can. 8, viz. to rebaptize those newly converted, if so

be it was found that they had not been baptized in the name of the

FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST; and so the first Council of Nice, Can. 19,

ordered that the Paulianists, or followers of Paul of Samosata, and the

Cataphrygians should be rebaptized. The Council of Laodicea, Can. 7, and

the second of Arles, Can. 16, decreed the same as to some heretics.

But the notion of the invalidity of _infant_ baptism, which is the

foundation of the modern Anabaptism, was not taught until the twelfth

century, when Peterall Bruis, a Frenchman, preached it.

ANABATA. A cope, or sacerdotal vestment, to cover the back and shoulders

of a priest. This is no longer used in the English Church.

ANALOGY OF FAITH, [translated in our version, _proportion of faith_,] is

the proportion that the doctrines of the gospel bear to each other, or

the close connexion between the truths of revealed religion. (Rom. xii.

6.)

ANAPHORA. That part of the liturgy of the Greek Church, which follows

the introductory part, beginning at the _Sursum corda_, or, _Lift up

your hearts_, to the end, including the solemn prayers of consecration,

&c. It resembles, but does not exactly correspond to, the Roman Canon.

(See _Renandot_.)—_Jebb._

ANATHEMA, imports whatever is set apart, separated, or divided; but is

most usually meant to express the cutting off of a person from the

communion of the faithful. It was practised in the primitive Church

against notorious offenders. Several councils, also, have pronounced

anathemas against such as they thought corrupted the purity of the

faith. The Church of England in her 18th Article anathematizes those who

teach that eternal salvation is to be obtained otherwise than through

the name of Christ, and in her Canons excommunicates all who say that

the Church of England is not a true and apostolic Church.—_Can._ 3. All

impugners of the public worship of GOD, established in the Church of

England.—_Can._ 4. All impugners of the rites and ceremonies of the

Church.—_Can._ 6. All impugners of episcopacy.—_Can._ 7. All authors of

schism.—_Can._ 9. All maintainers of schismatics.—_Can._ 10. All these

persons lie under the anathema of the Church of England.

ANCHORET. A name given to a hermit, from his dwelling alone, apart from

society (Ἀναχωρητής). The anchoret is distinguished from the cœnobite,

or the monk who dwells in a fraternity, or Κοινόβια. (See _Monks_.)

ANDREW’S (_Saint_) DAY. This festival is celebrated by the Church of

England, Nov. 30, in commemoration of St. Andrew, who was, first of all,

a disciple of St. John the Baptist, but being assured by his master that

he was not the MESSIAS, and hearing him say, upon the sight of our

SAVIOUR, “_Behold the LAMB of GOD!_” he left the Baptist, and being

convinced himself of our SAVIOUR’S divine mission, by conversing with

him some time at the place of his abode, he went to his brother Simon,

afterwards surnamed Peter by our SAVIOUR, and acquainted him with his

having found out the MESSIAS; but he did not become our LORD’S constant

attendant until a special call or invitation. After the ascension of

CHRIST, when the apostles distributed themselves in various parts of the

world, St. Andrew is said to have preached the gospel in Scythia, in

Epirus, in Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia, and the vicinity of Byzantium,

and finally, to have suffered death by crucifixion, at Ægea, by order of

the proconsul of the place. The instrument of his death is said to have

been in the form of the letter X, being a cross decussate, or saltier,

two pieces of timber crossing each other in the middle; and hence

usually known by the name of St. Andrew’s cross.

ANGEL. (See _Idolatry_, _Mariolatry_, _Invocation of Saints_.) By an

angel is meant a messenger who performs the will of a superior. The

scriptural words, both in Hebrew and Greek, mean a messenger. Thus, in

the letters addressed by St. John to the seven churches in Asia Minor,

the bishops of those churches are addressed as angels; ministers not

appointed by the people, but sent by GOD. But the word is generally

applied to those spiritual beings who surround the throne of glory, and

who are sent forth to minister to them that be heirs of salvation. It is

supposed by some that there is a subordination of angels in heaven, in

the several ranks of seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominions,

principalities, &c. We recognise in the service of the Church, the three

orders of archangels, cherubim, and seraphim. The only archangel, as

Bishop Horsley remarks, mentioned in Scripture, is St. Michael. (See

_Cherub_.) The word seraph signifies in the Hebrew to burn. It is

possible that these two orders of angels are alluded to in Psal. civ. 4,

“He maketh his angels spirits; and his ministers a flaming fire.” The

worship of angels is one of the sins of the Romish Church. It was first

invented by a sect in the fourth century, who, for the purpose of

exercising this unlawful worship, held private meetings separate from

those of the Catholic Church, in which it was not permitted. The Council

of Laodicea, the decrees of which were received and approved by the

whole Church, condemned the sect in the following terms: “Christians

ought not to forsake the Church of God, and depart and call on angels,

and make meetings, which are forbidden. If any one, therefore, be found,

giving himself to this hidden idolatry, let him be anathema, because he

hath left the LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Son of GOD, and hath betaken

himself to _idolatry_.” The same principle applies to prayers made to

any created being. The worship of the creature was regarded by the

Church in the fourth century as idolatry. See _Bishop Beveridge’s_

Expos. of Acts xxii.: see also _Bishop Bull_, on the Corruption of the

Church of Rome, sect. iii., who, whilst showing that the ancient fathers

and councils were express in their denunciation of it, (e. g. the

Council of Laodicea, Theodoret, Origen, Justin Martyr, &c.,) says, “It

is very evident that the Catholic Christians of Origen’s time made no

prayers to angels or saints, but directed all their prayers to God,

through the alone mediation of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Indeed, against

the invocation of angels and saints we have the concurrent testimonies

of all the Catholic Fathers of the first three centuries at least.”

Bishop Bull then refers to his own _Def. Fid. Nic._ ii. to 8, for a

refutation of Bellarmine’s unfair citation of Justin Martyr, (_Apol._ i.

6, p. 47,) where he says, “I have evidently proved that that plan of

Justin, so far from giving countenance to the religious worship of

angels, makes directly against it.” Also the most ancient Liturgies, &c.

ANGELIC HYMN. A title given to the hymn or doxology beginning with

“Glory be to God on high,” &c. It is so called from the former part of

it having been sung by the angels on their appearance to the shepherds

of Bethlehem, to announce to them the birth of the REDEEMER. (See

_Gloria in Excelsis_.)

ANGELICI. A sort of Christian heretics, who were supposed to have their

rise in the apostles’ time, but who were most numerous about A.D. 180.

They worshipped angels, and from thence had their name.

ANGELITES. A sort of Sabellian heretics, so called from Agelius or

Angelius, a place in Alexandria, where they used to meet.

ANGLO-CATHOLIC CHURCH. (See _Church of England_.) Any branch of the

Church reformed on the principles of the English Reformation.

In certain considerations of the first spiritual importance, the Church

of England occupies a singularly felicitous position. The great majority

of Christians—the Roman, Greek, and Eastern Churches—regard Episcopacy

as indispensable to the integrity of Christianity; the Presbyterians and

others, who have no bishops, nor, as far as we can judge, any means of

obtaining the order, regard episcopacy as unnecessary. Supposing for a

moment the question to be dubious, the position of the Presbyterian is,

at the best, unsafe; the position of the member of the Church of England

is, at the worst, perfectly safe: at the worst, he can only be in the

same position at last as the Presbyterian is in at present. On the

Anti-episcopalian’s own ground, the Episcopalian is on this point doubly

fortified; whilst, on the opposite admission, the Presbyterian is doubly

condemned, first, in the subversion of a Divine institution; and,

secondly, in the invalidity of the ordinances of grace. Proceeding,

therefore, on mere reason, it would be most unwise for a member of the

Church of England to become a Presbyterian; he can gain nothing by the

change, and may lose everything. The case is exactly the reverse with

the Presbyterian.

Again: by all apostolic Churches the apostolic succession is maintained

to be a _sine quâ non_ for the valid administration of the eucharist and

the authoritative remission of sins. The sects beyond the pale of the

apostolic succession very naturally reject its indispensability; but no

one is so fanatical as to imagine its possession invalidates the

ordinances of the Church possessing it. Now, of all branches of the

Catholic Church, the Church of England is most impregnable on this

point; she unites in her priesthood the triple successions of the

ancient British, the ancient Irish, and the ancient Roman Church.

Supposing, therefore, the apostolic Churches to hold the right dogma on

the succession, the member of the Church of England has not the

slightest occasion to disturb his soul; he is trebly safe. Supposing, on

the other hand, the apostolic succession to be a fortunate historical

fact, not a divinely perpetuated authority, he is still, at the least,

as safe as the dissenter; whereas, if it is, as the Church holds, the

only authority on earth which the SAVIOUR has commissioned with his

power, what is the spiritual state of the schismatic who usurps, or of

the assembly that pretends to bestow, what GOD alone can grant and has

granted to his Church only. No plausible inducement to separate from the

Church of England can counterbalance this necessity for remaining in her

communion: and her children have great cause to be grateful for being

placed by her in a state of such complete security on two such essential

articles of administrative Christianity.—_Morgan._

ANNATES, or FIRST-FRUITS. These are the profits of one year of every

vacant bishopric in England, claimed at first by the pope, upon a

pretence of defending the Christians from the infidels; and paid by

every bishop at his accession, before he could receive his investiture

from Rome. Afterwards the pope prevailed on all those who were spiritual

patrons to oblige their clerks to pay these annates; and so by degrees

they became payable by the clergy in general. Some of our historians

tell us that Pope Clement was the first who claimed annates in England,

in the reign of Edward I.; but Selden, in a short account which he has

given us of the reign of William Rufus, affirms that they were claimed

by the pope before that reign. Chronologers differ also about the time

when they became a settled duty. Platina asserts that Boniface IX., who

was pope in the first year of Henry IV., _Annalarum usum beneficiis

ecclesiasticis primum imposuit (viz.) dimidium annui proventus fisco

apostolico persolvere_. Walsingham affirms it to be above eighty years

before that time,(viz.) in the time of Pope John XXII., who was pope

about the middle of the reign of Edward II., and that he _reservavit

cameræ suæ primos fructus beneficiorum_. But a learned bishop of

Worcester has made this matter more clear. He states that the old and

accustomed fees paid here to the feudal lords were called _beneficia_;

and that the popes, assuming to be lords or spiritual heads of the

Church, were not contented with an empty though very great title,

without some temporal advantage, and therefore Boniface VIII., about the

latter end of the reign of Edward I., having assumed an absolute

dominion in beneficiary matters, made himself a kind of feudal lord over

the benefices of the Church, and as a consequence thereof, claimed a

year’s profits of the Church, as a beneficiary fee due to himself, the

chief lord. But though the usurped power of the pope was then very

great, the king and the people did not comply with this demand; insomuch

that, by the statute of Carlisle, which was made in the last year of his

reign, and about the beginning of the popedom of Clement V., this was

called a new imposition _gravis et intolerabilis, et contra leges et

consuetudines regni_; and by reason of this powerful opposition the

matter rested for some time: but the successors of that pope found more

favourable opportunities to insist on this demand, which was a year’s

profits of each vacant bishopric, at a reasonable valuation, viz. a

moiety of the full value; and having obtained what they demanded, they

afterwards endeavoured to raise the value, but were opposed in this

likewise by the parliament, in the 6th of Henry IV., and a penalty was

inflicted on those bishops who paid more for their first-fruits than was

accustomed. But, notwithstanding these statutes, such was the plenitude

of the pope’s power, and so great was the profit which accrued to him by

this invention, that in little more than half a century, the sum of

£16,000 was paid to him, under the name of annates, for expediting bulls

of bishoprics only. The payment of these was continued till about the

25th year of Henry VIII., and then an act was made, reciting, that since

the beginning of that parliament another statute had been made (which

act is not printed) for the suppressing the exaction of annates of

archbishops and bishops. But the parliament being unwilling to proceed

to extremities, remitted the putting that act in execution to the king

himself: that if the pope would either put down annates, or so moderate

the payment that they might no longer be a burthen to the people, the

king, by letters patent, might declare the act should be of no force.

The pope, having notice of this, and taking no care to reform those

exactions, that statute was confirmed; and because it only extended to

annates paid for archbishoprics and bishoprics, in the next year another

statute was made, (26 Henry VIII. cap. 3,) that not only those

first-fruits formerly paid by bishops, but those of every other

spiritual living, should be paid to the king. Notwithstanding these

laws, there were still some apprehensions, that, upon the death of

several prelates who were then very old, great sums of money would be

conveyed to Rome by their successors; therefore, Anno 33 Henry VIII., it

was enacted, that all contributions of annates for bishoprics, or for

any bulls to be obtained from the see of Rome, should cease; and if the

pope should deny any bulls of consecration by reason of this

prohibition, then the bishop presented should be consecrated in England

by the archbishop of the province; and if it was in the case of an

archbishop, then he should be consecrated by any two bishops to be

appointed by the king; and that, instead of annates, a bishop should pay

to the pope £5 per cent. of the clear yearly value of his bishopric. But

before this time (viz. 31 Henry VIII. cap. 22) there was a court erected

by the parliament, for the levying and government of these first-fruits,

which court was dissolved by Queen Mary; and in the next year the

payment was ordered to cease as to her. But in the first of Elizabeth

they were again restored to the crown, and the statute 32 Hen. VIII.,

which directed the grant and order of them, was recontinued; and that

they should be from thenceforth within the government of the exchequer.

But vicarages not exceeding £10 per annum, and parsonages not exceeding

ten marks, according to the valuation in the first-fruits’ office, were

exempted from payment of first-fruits; and the reason is because

vicarages, when this valuation was made, had a large revenue, arising

from voluntary oblations which ceased upon the dissolution, &c., and

therefore they had this favour of exemption allowed them afterwards. By

the before-mentioned statute, a new officer was created, called a

remembrancer of the first-fruits, whose business it was to take

compositions for the same; and to send process to the sheriff against

those who did not pay it; and by the act 26 Henry VIII. he who entered

into a living without compounding, or paying the first-fruits, was to

forfeit double the value.

To prevent which forfeiture, it was usual for the clerk newly presented,

to give four bonds to pay the same, within two years next after

induction, by four equal payments. But though these bonds were executed,

yet if the clergyman died, or was legally deprived before the payments

became due, it was a good discharge by virtue of the act 1 Elizabeth

before-mentioned. And thus it stood, until Queen Anne, taking into

consideration the insufficient maintenance of the poor clergy, sent a

message to the House of Commons by one of her principal secretaries,

signifying her intention to grant the first-fruits for the better

support of the clergy; and that they would find out some means to make

her intentions more effectual. Thereupon an act was passed, by which the

queen was to incorporate persons, and to settle upon them and their

successors the revenue of the first-fruits; but that the statutes

before-mentioned should continue in force, for such intents and purposes

as should be directed in her grant; and that this new act should not

extend to impeach or make void any former grant made of this revenue.

And likewise any person, except infants and _femme-coverts_, without

their husbands, might, by bargain and sale enrolled, dispose lands or

goods to such corporation, for the maintenance of the clergy officiating

in the Established Church, without any settled competent provision; and

the corporation might also purchase lands for that purpose,

notwithstanding the statute of _mortmain_. Pursuant to this law, the

queen (in the third year of her reign) incorporated several of the

nobility, bishops, judges, and gentry, &c., by the name of the Governors

of the Bounty of Queen Anne, for the augmentation of the maintenance of

the poor clergy, to whom she gave the first-fruits, &c., and appointed

the governors to meet at the Prince’s Chamber, in Westminster, or in any

other place in London or Westminster, to be appointed by any seven of

them; of which number a privy-counsellor, a bishop, a judge, or

counsellor at law, must be one; there to consult about the distribution

of this bounty. That four courts shall be held by these governors in

every year, viz. in the months of December, March, June, and September;

and that seven of the said governors (_quorum tres, &c._) shall be a

court, and that the business shall be despatched by majority of votes:

that such courts may appoint committees out of the number of the

governors, for the better managing their business; and at their first or

any other meeting, deliver to the queen what methods they shall think

fit for the government of the corporation; which being approved under

the great seal, shall be the rules of the government thereof. That the

lord keeper shall issue out writs of inquiry, at their request, directed

to three or more persons, to inquire, upon oath, into the value of the

maintenance of poor parsons who have not £80 per annum, and the distance

of their churches from London; and which of them are in market or

corporate towns, or not; and how the churches are supplied; and if the

incumbents have more than one living; that care may be taken to increase

their maintenance. That after such inquiry made, they do prepare and

exhibit to the queen a true state of the yearly value of the maintenance

of all such ministers, and of the present yearly value of the

first-fruits and arrears thereof, and of such pensions as are now

payable out of the same, by virtue of any former grants. That there

shall be a secretary, and a treasurer, who shall continue in their

office during the pleasure of the corporation; that they shall take an

oath before the court for the faithful execution of their office. That

the treasurer must give security to account for the money which he

receives; and that his receipt shall be a discharge for what he

receives; and that he shall be subject to the examination of four or

more of the governors. That the governors shall collect and receive the

bounties of other persons; and shall admit into their corporation any

contributors, (whom they think fit for so pious a work,) and appoint

persons under their common seal, to take subscriptions, and collect the

money contributed; and that the names of the benefactors shall be

registered in a book to be kept for that purpose.

Owing mainly to the exertion of Dean Swift, a similar remission of the

first-fruits was made in Ireland during the reign of Queen Anne, and a

corporation for the distribution of this fruit was appointed under the

designation of the _Board of First-fruits_, consisting of all the

archbishops and bishops of Ireland, the dean of St. Patrick’s, and the

chief officers of the Crown. The Board was dissolved by the act of

parliament which established the first Ecclesiastical Commission, which

now discharges its functions.

ANNIVELAIS, or _Annualais_. The chantry priests, whose duty it was to

say private masses at particular altars, were so called; as at Exeter

cathedral, &c. They were also called chaplains.

ANNUNCIADA. A society founded at Rome, in the year 1460, by Cardinal

John Turrecremata, for the marrying of poor maids. It now bestows, every

Lady-day, sixty Roman crowns, a suit of white serge, and a florin for

slippers, to above 400 maids for their portion. The popes have so great

a regard for this charitable foundation, that they make a cavalcade,

attended with the cardinals, &c., to distribute tickets for these sixty

crowns, &c., for those who are to receive them. If any of the maids are

desirous to be nuns, they have each of them 120 crowns, and are

distinguished by a chaplet of flowers on their head.

ANNUNCIADE, otherwise called the Order of the Ten Virtues, or Delights,

of the Virgin Mary; a Popish order of women, founded by Queen Jane, of

France, wife to Lewis XII., whose rule and chief business was to honour,

with a great many beads and rosaries, the ten principal virtues or

delights of the Virgin Mary; the first of which they make to be when the

angel Gabriel annunciated to her the mystery of the incarnation, from

whence they have their name; the second, when she saw her son JESUS

brought into the world; the third, when the wise men came to worship

him; the fourth, when she found him disputing with the doctors in the

temple, &c. This order was confirmed by the pope in 1501, and by Leo X.

again in 1517.

ANNUNCIATION of the BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. This festival is appointed by

the Church, in commemoration of that day on which it was announced to

Mary, by an angel, that she should be the mother of the Messiah. The

Church of England observes this festival on the 25th of March, and in

the calendar the day is called the “Annunciation of our Lady,” and hence

the 25th of March is called Lady-day. It is observed as a “scarlet day”

at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

ANOMŒANS. (From ἄνομοιος, unlike.) The name of the extreme Arians in the

fourth century, because they held the essence of the SON of GOD to be

unlike unto that of the FATHER. These heretics were condemned by the

semi-Arians, at the Council of Seleucia, A. D. 359, but they revenged

themselves of this censure a year after, at a pretended synod in

Constantinople.

ANTELUCAN. In times of persecution, the Christians being unable to meet

for divine worship in the open day, held their assemblies in the night.

The like assemblies were afterwards continued from feelings of piety and

devotion, and called _Antelucan_, or _assemblies before daylight_.

ANTHEM. A hymn, sung in parts alternately. Such, at least, would appear

to be its original sense. The word is derived from the Greek Ἀντιφωνὴ,

which signifies, as Isidorus interprets it, “_Vox reciproca_,” &c., _one

voice succeeding another; that is, two choruses singing by turns_. (See

_Antiphon_.) In the Greek Church it was more particularly applied to one

of the Alleluia Psalms sung after those of the day. In the Roman and

unreformed Western offices it is ordinarily applied to a short sentence

sung before and after one of the Psalms of the day: so called, according

to Cardinal Bona, because it gives the tone to the Psalms which are sung

antiphonely, or by each side of the choir alternately; and then at the

end both choirs join in the anthem. The same term is given to short

sentences said or sung at different parts of the service; also

occasionally to metrical hymns. The real reason of the application of

the term in these instances seems to be this, that these sentences are a

sort of response to, or alternation with, the other parts of the office.

The preacher’s text was at the beginning of the Reformation sometimes

called the _Anthem_. (_Strype, Ann. of the Ref._ chap. ix. A. D. 1559.)

In this sense it is applied in King Edward’s First Book to the sentences

in the Visitation of the Sick, “Remember not,” &c., &c., “O Saviour of

the world,” &c., which were obviously never intended to be sung. In the

same book it is applied to the hymns peculiar to Easter day, and to the

prayer in the Communion Service, “Turn thou us,” &c., both of which are

prescribed to be said or sung. In our present Prayer Book it occurs only

in reference to the Easter Hymn, and in the rubrics after the third

Collects of Morning and Evening Prayer. These rubrics were first

inserted at the last Review, though there is no doubt that the anthem

had always been customarily performed in the same place. To the anthem

so performed Milton alluded in the well-known words, “In service high

and anthems clear;” these expressions, as well as the whole phraseology

of that unrivalled passage, being technically correct: the service

meaning the Church Hymns, set to varied harmonies; the anthem, (of which

two were commonly performed in the full Sunday morning service,) the

compositions now in question.

The English Anthem, as the term has long been practically understood,

sanctioned by the universal use of the Church of England, has no exact

equivalent in the service of other Churches. It resembles, but not

exactly, the _Motets_ of foreign choirs, and occasionally their

Responsories or Antiphons. There are a few metrical anthems,

corresponding to the hymns of those choirs. But, generally speaking, the

English anthem is set to words from Holy Scripture, or the Liturgy;

sung, not to a chant, or an air, like that of a hymn, but to varied

consecutive strains, admitting of every diversity of solo, verse, and

chorus. The Easter-day Anthem, at the time of the last Review, was not

usually sung, as now, to a chant, but to varied harmonies, (as is still

the case at Salisbury cathedral,)—and in the sealed book it is to be

observed, that it is not printed like the Psalms, in verses, but in

paragraphs. Properly speaking, our _services_, technically so called,

(see _Service_,) are anthems; as are also the hymns in the Communion and

Burial Service. The responses to the Commandments, and the sentence “O

Lord, arise,” &c., in the Liturgy, give a tolerably correct notion of

the Roman Antiphon.

The Church of England anthems consist of three kinds: _Full_; or those

sung throughout by the whole choir. _Full_ with verse; that is,

consisting of a chorus for the most part, but with an occasional passage

sung by but a few voices. _Verse_; consisting mainly of solos, duets,

trios, &c., the chorus being the appendage, not the substance.

Objections have been made of late to verse anthems; but there is no

question that they are nearly, if not quite, coeval with the

Reformation.

In many choirs, besides the anthem in its proper place after the third

Morning Collect, another was sung on Sundays after the sermon. In the

Coronation Service several anthems are prescribed to be used.—_Jebb._

An anthem in choirs and places where they sing is appointed by the

rubric in the daily service in the Prayer Book, after the third Collect,

both at Morning and Evening Prayer.

ANTHOLOGIUM. (In Latin, _Florilegium_.) The title of a book in the Greek

Church, divided into twelve months, containing the offices sung

throughout the whole year, on the festivals of our SAVIOUR, the Virgin

Mary, and other remarkable saints. It is in two volumes; the first

contains six months, from the first day of September to the last day of

February; the second comprehends the other six months. It is observable

from this book that the Greek Church celebrates Easter at the same time

with the Church of England, notwithstanding that they differ from us in

the lunar cycle.—_Broughton._

ANTHROPOLATRÆ. (_Man-worshippers._) A name of abuse given to churchmen

by the Apollinarians, because they maintained that CHRIST, whom both

admitted to be the object of the Christian’s worship, was a perfect man,

of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. This the Apollinarians

denied. It was always the way with heretics to apply to churchmen terms

of reproach, while they assumed to themselves distinctive appellations

of honour: thus the Manichees, for instance, while they called

themselves _the elect_, _the blessed_, and _the pure_, gave to the

churchmen the name of _simple ones_. It is not less a sign of a

sectarian spirit to assume a distinctive name of honour, than to impose

on the Church a name of reproach, for both tend to divided communion in

spirit or in fact. There is this good, however, to be gathered from

these slanderous and vain-glorious arts of heretics; that their terms of

reproach serve to indicate some true doctrine of the Church: as, for

instance, that of _Anthropolatræ_ determines the opinion of Catholics

touching CHRIST’S human nature; while the names of distinction which

heretics themselves assume, usually serve to throw light on the history

of their own error.

ANTHROPOMORPHITES. Heretics who were so called because they maintained

that GOD had a human shape. They are mentioned by Eusebius as the

opponents of Origen, and their accusation of Origen implies their own

heresy. “Whereas,” they said, “the sacred Scriptures testify that GOD

has eyes, ears, hands, and feet, as men have, the partisans of

Dioscorus, being followers of Origen, introduce the blasphemous dogma

that GOD has not a body.” The Anthropomorphite error was common among

the monks of Egypt about the end of the fourth century. Dioscorus was a

leader of the opposite party.

ANTICHRIST. The man of sin, who is to precede the second advent of our

blessed Saviour JESUS CHRIST. “Little children,” saith St. John, “ye

have heard that Antichrist shall come.” And St. Paul, in the Second

Epistle to the Thessalonians, describes him: “That day (the day of our

LORD’S second advent) shall not come except there come a falling away

first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who

opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called GOD, or that is

worshipped; so that he, as GOD, sitteth in the temple of GOD, showing

himself that he is GOD. Then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the

LORD shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with

the brightness of his coming; even him whose coming is after the working

of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all

deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.”

Under the image of a horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very

great things; that made war with the saints, and prevailed against them

till the ANCIENT of days came; and under the image of a little horn,

which attacked the very heavens, and trod down and trampled on the

state, Daniel is supposed to predict Antichrist.

St. John in the Apocalypse describes Antichrist as a beast that

ascendeth out of the bottomless pit, and maketh war upon the saints; as

a beast rising out of the sea, with two horns and two crowns upon his

horns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. In another place, he

speaks of the number of the beast, and says, it is six hundred

threescore and six.

It is not the purpose of this dictionary to state the various ways in

which this prophecy has been understood. We therefore pass on to say,

that Antichrist is to lay the foundation of his empire in Babylon, i. e.

(as many have supposed,) in Rome, and he is to be destroyed by the

second coming of our LORD.

ANTINOMIANS. The Antinomians derive their name from ἀντὶ, against,

νόμος, law, their distinguishing tenet being, that the law is not a rule

of life to believers under the gospel. The founder of the Antinomian

heresy was John Agricola, a Saxon divine, a contemporary, a countryman,

and at first a disciple, of Luther. He was of a restless temper, and

wrote against Melancthon; and having obtained a professorship at

Wittemberg, he first taught Antinomianism there, about the year 1535.

The Papists, in their disputes with the Protestants of that day, carried

the merit of good works to an extravagant length; and this induced some

of their opponents, as is too often the case, to run into the opposite

extreme. The doctrine of Agricola was in itself obscure, and perhaps

represented worse than it really was by Luther, who wrote with acrimony

against him, and first styled him and his followers Antinomians—perhaps

thereby “intending,” as Dr. Hey conjectures, “to disgrace the notions of

Agricola, and make even him ashamed of them.” Agricola stood in his own

defence, and complained that opinions were imputed to him which he did

not hold.

About the same time, Nicholas Amsdorf, bishop of Naumburg in Saxony,

fell under the same odious name and imputation, and seems to have been

treated more unfairly than even Agricola himself. The bishop died at

Magdeburg in 1541, and some say that his followers were called for a

time Amsdorfians, after his name.

This sect sprung up among the Presbyterians in England, during the

Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, who was himself an Antinomian of the

worst sort. The supporters of the Popish doctrines deducing a

considerable portion of the arguments on which they rested their defence

from the doctrines of the old law, Agricola, in the height of his zeal

for reformation, was encouraged by the success of his master, Luther, to

attack the very foundation of their arguments, and to deny that any part

of the Old Testament was intended as a rule of faith or practice to the

disciples of CHRIST.

He is said to have taught that the law ought not to be proposed to the

people as a rule of manners, nor used in the Church as a means of

instruction; and, of course, that repentance is not to be preached from

the Decalogue, but only from the gospel; that the gospel alone is to be

inculcated and explained, both in the churches and the schools of

learning; and that good works do not promote our salvation, nor evil

works hinder it.

Some of his followers in England, in the seventeenth century, are said

to have expressly maintained, that as the elect cannot fall from grace,

nor forfeit the Divine favour, the wicked actions they commit are not

really sinful, nor are they to be considered as instances of their

violation of the Divine law; and that, consequently, they have no

occasion either to confess their sins, or to seek renewed forgiveness.

According to them, it is one of the essential and distinctive characters

of the elect, that they cannot do anything displeasing to GOD, or

prohibited by the law. “Let me speak freely to you, and tell you,” says

Dr. Tobias Crisp, (who may be styled the _primipilus_ of the more modern

scheme of Antinomianism, and was the great Antinomian opponent of

Baxter, Bates, Howe, &c.,) “that the Lord hath no more to lay to the

charge of an elect person, yet in the height of his iniquity, and in the

excess of riot, and committing all the abominations that can be

committed; I say, even then, when an elect person runs such a course,

the Lord hath no more to lay to that person’s charge, than God hath to

lay to the charge of a believer: nay, God hath no more to lay to the

charge of such a person than he hath to lay to the charge of a saint

triumphant in glory. The elect of God, they are the heirs of God; and as

they are heirs, so the first being of them puts them into the right of

inheritance, and there is no time but such a person is the child of

God.”

That the justification of sinners is an immanent and eternal act of God,

not only preceding all acts of sin, but the existence of the sinner

himself, is the opinion of most of those who are styled Antinomians,

though some suppose, with Dr. Crisp, that the elect were justified at

the time of CHRIST’S death. In answer to the question, “When did the

Lord justify us?” Dr. Crisp says, “He did, from eternity, in respect of

obligation; but in respect of execution, he did it when Christ was on

the cross; and in respect of application, he doth it while children are

yet unborn.”

The other principal doctrines which at present bear the appellation of

Antinomian, are said to be as follows:

1. That justification by faith is no more than a manifestation to us of

what was done before we had a being.

2. That men ought not to doubt of their faith, or question whether they

believe in Christ.

3. That by God’s laying our iniquities upon Christ, and our being

imputed righteous through him, he became as completely sinful as we, and

we as completely righteous as Christ.

4. That believers need not fear either their own sins or the sins of

others, since neither can do them any injury.

5. That the new covenant is not made properly with us, but with Christ

for us; and that this covenant is all of it a promise, having no

conditions for us to perform; for faith, repentance, and obedience, are

not conditions on our part, but on Christ’s; and that he repented,

believed, and obeyed for us.

6. That sanctification is not a proper evidence of justification—that

our righteousness is nothing but the imputation of the righteousness of

Christ—that a believer has no holiness in himself, but in Christ only;

and that the very moment he is justified, he is wholly sanctified, and

he is neither more nor less holy from that hour to the day of his death.

Justification by a faith not necessarily productive of good works, and

righteousness imputed to such a faith, are the doctrines by which the

members of this denomination are chiefly distinguished.

While the Socinian Unitarians place the whole of their religion in

morality, in disregard of Christian faith, the Antinomians rely so on

faith as to undervalue morality. Their doctrines at least have too much

that appearance.

In short, according to Dr. Williams, Dr. Crisp’s scheme is briefly this:

“That by God’s mere electing decree all saving blessings are by Divine

obligation made ours, and nothing more is needful to our title to these

blessings: that on the cross all the sins of the elect were transferred

to Christ, and ceased ever after to be their sins: that at the first

moment of conception a title to all those decreed blessings is

personally applied to the elect, and they are invested actually therein.

Hence the elect have nothing to do, in order to have an interest in any

of those blessings, nor ought they to intend the least good to

themselves in what they do: sin can do them no harm because it is none

of theirs; nor can God afflict them for any sin.” And all the rest of

his opinions “follow in a chain,” adds Dr. W., “to the dethroning of

Christ, enervating his laws and pleadings, obstructing the great design

of redemption, opposing the very scope of the gospel, and the ministry

of Christ and his prophets and apostles.”—_Adams._

High Calvinism, or Antinomianism, absolutely withers and destroys the

consciousness of human responsibility. It confounds moral with natural

impotency, forgetting that the former is a crime, the latter only a

misfortune; and thus treats the man dead in trespasses and sins, as if

he were already in his grave. It prophesies smooth things to the sinner

going on in his transgressions, and soothes to slumber and the repose of

death the souls of such as are at ease in Zion. It assumes that, because

men can neither believe, repent, nor pray acceptably, unless aided by

the grace of God, it is useless to call upon them to do so. It maintains

that the gospel is only intended for elect sinners, and therefore it

ought to be preached to none but such. In defiance, therefore, of the

command of God, it refuses to preach the glad tidings of mercy to every

sinner. In opposition to Scripture, and to every rational consideration,

it contends that it is not man’s duty to believe the truth of

God—justifying the obvious inference, that it is not a sin to reject it.

In short, its whole tendency is to produce an impression on the sinner’s

mind, that if he is not saved it is not his fault, but God’s; that if he

is condemned, it is more for the glory of the Divine Sovereignty, than

as the punishment of his guilt.

So far from regarding the moral cure of human nature as the great object

and design of the gospel, Antinomianism does not take it in at all, but

as it exists in Christ, and becomes ours by a figure of speech. It

regards the grace and the pardon as everything—the spiritual design or

effect as nothing. Hence its opposition to progressive and its zeal for

imputed sanctification: the former is intelligible and tangible, but the

latter a mere figment of the imagination. Hence its delight in

expatiating on the eternity of the Divine decrees, which it does not

understand, but which serve to amuse and to deceive; and its dislike to

all the sober realities of God’s present dealings and commands. It

exults in the contemplation of a Christ who is a kind of concretion of

all the moral attributes of his people; to the overlooking of that

Christ who is the Head of all that in heaven and on earth bear his

likeness. It boasts in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints,

while it believes in no saint but one, that is, Jesus, and neglects to

persevere.—_Orme’s Life of Baxter_, vol. ii. p. 311.

ANTI-PÆDOBAPTISTS. (From ἀντὶ, against, παῖς, child, βάπτισμα, baptism.)

Persons who are opposed to the baptism of infants. In this country, this

sect arrogate to themselves the title of Baptists _par excellence_, as

though no other body of Christians baptized: just as the Socinians

extenuate their heresy by calling themselves _Unitarians_: thereby

insinuating that those who hold the mystery of the Holy Trinity do not

believe in one GOD. (See _Anabaptists_, _Baptism_.)

ANTIPHON, or ANTIPHONY. (ἀντὶ and φωνὴ.) The chant or alternate singing

of a Christian choir. This is the most ancient form of church music.

Diodorus and Flavian, the leaders of the orthodox party at Antioch

during the ascendency of Arianism, in the fourth century, and St.

Ambrose at Milan, instead of leaving the chanting to the choristers, as

had been usual, divided the whole congregation into two choirs, which

sang the psalms alternately. That the chanting of the psalms alternately

is even older than Christianity, cannot be doubted, for the custom

prevailed in the Jewish temple. Many of the psalms are actually composed

in alternate verses, evidently with a view to their being used in a

responsive manner. “I make no doubt,” says Nicholls, “but that it is to

this way of singing used in the temple, that that vision in Isaiah vi.

alluded, when he saw the two cherubims, and heard them singing, ‘Holy,

holy,’ &c. For these words cannot be otherwise explained, than of their

singing anthem-wise; ‘they called out this to that cherubim,’ properly

relates to the singing in a choir, one voice on one side, and one on the

other.” In the earlier days of the Christian Church, this practice was

adopted, and became universal. The custom is said, by Socrates the

historian, to have been first introduced among the Greeks by Ignatius.

St. Basil tells us that, in his time, about A. D. 470, the Christians,

“rising from their prayers, proceeded to singing of psalms, dividing

themselves into two parts, and singing by turns.” Tertullian remarks,

that “when one side of the choir sing to the other, they both provoke it

by a holy contention, and relieve it by a mutual supply and change.” For

these or similar reasons, the reading of the Psalter is, in places where

there is no choir, divided between the minister and people. In the

cathedral worship of the Church Universal, the psalms of the day are

chanted throughout. And in order to preserve their responsive character,

two full choirs are stationed one on each side of the church. One of

these having chanted one or two verses (the usual compass of the

chant-tune) remains silent, while the opposite choir replies in the

verses succeeding; and at the end of each psalm, (and of each division

of the 119th Psalm,) the _Gloria Patri_ is sung by the united choirs in

chorus, accompanied by the peal of the great organ. The usage, now

prevalent in foreign churches subject to Rome, of chanting one verse by

a single voice, and the other by the full choir, is not ancient, and is

admitted to be incorrect by some continental ritualists themselves. This

method is quite destructive of the genuine effect of antiphonal

chanting, which ought to be equally balanced on each side of the choir.

It may indeed be accepted as a sort of modification of the ordinary

parochial mode; but in regular choirs it would be a clear innovation, a

retrograde movement, instead of an improvement. In some choirs the

_Gloria Patri_ is sung antiphonally, but always to the great

organ.—_Jebb._

ANTIPHONAR. The book which contains the invitatories, responsories,

verses, collects, and whatever else is sung in the choir; but not

including the hymns peculiar to the Communion Service, which are

contained in the _Gradual_, or _Grail_.—_Jebb._

ANTI-POPE. He that usurps the popedom in opposition to the right pope.

Geddes gives the history of no less than twenty-four schisms in the

Roman Church caused by anti-popes. Some took their rise from a diversity

of doctrines or belief, which led different parties to elect each their

several pope; but they generally took their rise from dubious

controverted rights of election. During the great schism, which,

commencing towards the close of the 14th century, lasted for fifty

years, there was always a pope and anti-pope; and as to the fact which

of the two rivals was pope, and which anti-pope, it is impossible even

now to decide. The greatest powers of Europe were at this time divided

in their opinions on the subject. As is observed by some Roman Catholic

writers, many pious and gifted persons, who are now numbered among the

saints of the Church, were to be found indifferently in either

obedience; which sufficiently proved, as they assert, that the eternal

salvation of the faithful was not, in this case, endangered by their

error. The schism began soon after the election of Urban VI., and was

terminated by the Council of Constance. By that Council three rival

popes were deposed, and the peace of the Church was restored by the

election of Martin V.

ANTI-TYPE. A Greek word, properly signifying a type or figure

corresponding to some other type: the word is commonly used in

theological writings to denote the person in whom any prophetic type is

fulfilled: thus, our blessed SAVIOUR is called the _Anti-type_ of the

Paschal lamb under the Jewish law.

APOCALYPSE. A revelation. The name sometimes given to the last book of

the New Testament, the Revelation of St. John the Divine, from its Greek

title, ἀποκαλύψις, which has the same meaning.

This is a canonical book of the New Testament. It was written, according

to Irenæus, about the year of Christ 96, in the island of Patmos,

whither St. John had been banished by the emperor Domitian; but Sir

Isaac Newton fixes the time of writing this book earlier, viz. in the

time of Nero. In support of this opinion he alleges the sense of the

earliest commentators, and the tradition of the Churches of Syria

preserved to this day in the title of the Syriac version of that book,

which is this: “The Revelation which was made to John the Evangelist by

God in the island of Patmos, into which he was banished by Nero the

Cæsar.” This opinion, he tells us, is further confirmed by the allusions

in the Apocalypse to the temple, and altar, and holy city, as then

standing; as also by the style of it, which is fuller of Hebraisms than

his Gospel; whence it may be inferred, that it was written when John was

newly come out of Judea. It is confirmed also by the many Apocalypses

ascribed to the apostles, which appeared in the apostolic age: for

Caīus, who was contemporary with Tertullian, tells us, that Cerinthus

wrote his Revelation in imitation of St. John’s, and yet he lived so

early that he opposed the apostles at Jerusalem twenty-six years before

the death of Nero, and died before St. John. To these reasons he adds

another, namely, that the Apocalypse seems to be alluded to in the

Epistles of St. Peter, and that to the Hebrews; and if so, must have

been written before them. The allusions he means, are the discourses

concerning the high priest in the heavenly tabernacle; the σαββατισμὸς,

or the millennial rest; the earth, “whose end is to be burned,” &c.;

whence this learned author is of opinion, that Peter and John stayed in

Judea and Syria till the Romans made war upon their nation, that is,

till the twelfth year of Nero; that they then retired into Asia, and

that Peter went from thence by Corinth to Rome; that the Romans, to

prevent insurrections from the Jews among them, secured their leaders,

and banished St. John into Patmos, where he wrote his Apocalypsis; and

that very soon after, the Epistle to the Hebrews and those of Peter were

written to the churches, with reference to this prophecy, as what they

were particularly concerned in. Some attribute this book to the

arch-heretic Cerinthus: but the ancients unanimously ascribe it to John

the son of Zebedee, and brother of James. The Revelation has not at all

times been esteemed canonical. There were many Churches of Greece, as

St. Jerome informs us, which did not receive it; neither is it in the

catalogue of the canonical books prepared by the Council of Laodicea;

nor in that of St. Cyril of Jerusalem; but Justin, Irenæus, Origen,

Cyprian, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, and all the fathers of the

fourth, fifth, and following centuries, quote the Revelations as a book

then acknowledged to be canonical.

It is a part of this prophecy, that it should not be understood before

the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit of the

prophecy that it is not yet understood.—The folly of interpreters has

been to foretell times and things by this prophecy, as if GOD designed

to make them prophets. By this rashness, they have not only exposed

themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of

GOD was much otherwise. He gave this, and the prophecies of the Old

Testament, not to gratify men’s curiosities by enabling them to foreknow

things, but that, after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted

by the event; and his own providence, not the interpreters, be then

manifested thereby to the world.—There is already so much of the

prophecy fulfilled, that as many as will take pains in this study, may

see sufficient instances of GOD’S providence.

The Apocalypse of John is written in the same style and language with

the prophecies of Daniel, and hath the same relation to them which they

have to one another: so that all of them together make but one

consistent prophecy, pointing out the various revolutions that should

happen both to the Church and the State, and at length the final

destruction and downfal of the Roman empire.

APOCRYPHA. (See _Bible_, _Scriptures_.) From ἀπὸ and κρύπτω, to hide,

“because they were wont to be read not openly and in common, but as it

were in secret and apart.” (_Bible of 1539, Preface to Apocrypha._)

Certain books appended to the sacred writings. There is no authority,

internal or external, for admitting these books into the sacred canon.

They were not received as portions of the Old Testament by the Jews, to

whom “were committed the oracles of GOD;” they are not cited and alluded

to in any part of the New Testament; and they are expressly rejected by

St. Athanasius and St. Jerome in the fourth century, though these two

fathers speak of them with respect. There is, therefore, no ground for

applying the books of the Apocrypha “to establish any doctrine,” but

they are highly valuable as ancient writings, which throw considerable

light upon the phraseology of Scripture, and upon the history and

manners of the East; and as they contain many noble sentiments and

useful precepts, the Church of England doth read them for “example of

life and instruction of manners.” (_Art._ VI.) They are frequently

quoted with great respect in the Homilies, although parties who bestow

much praise upon the Homilies are wont to follow a very contrary course.

The corrupt Church of Rome, at the fourth session of the Council of

Trent, admitted them to be of equal authority with Scripture. Thereby

the modern Church of Rome differs from the Catholic Church; and by

altering the canon of Scripture, and at the same time making her dictum

the rule of communion, renders it impossible for those Churches which

defer to antiquity to hold communion with her. Divines differ in opinion

as to the degree of respect due to those ancient writings. The reading

of the Apocryphal books in churches formed one of the grievances of the

Puritans: our Reformers, however, have made a selection for certain holy

days; and for the first lesson from the evening of the 27th of

September, till the morning of the 23rd of November, inclusive. Some

clergymen take upon themselves to alter these lessons; but for so doing

they are amenable to the ordinary, and should be presented by the

churchwardens, at the yearly episcopal or archidiaconal visitation; to

say nothing of their moral obligation. There were also Apocryphal books

of the New Testament; but these were manifest forgeries, and of course

were not used or accepted by the Church. (See _the Acts of the

Apostles_.)

APOLLINARIANS. An ancient sect who were followers of Apollinaris or

Apollinarius, bishop of Laodicea, about the middle of the fourth

century. He denied that our SAVIOUR had a reasonable human soul, and

asserted that the Logos or Divine nature supplied the place of it. This

is one of the sects we anathematize when we read the Athanasian Creed.

The doctrine of Apollinaris was condemned by several provincial

councils, and at length by the General Council of Constantinople, in

381. In short, it was attacked at the same time by the laws of the

emperors, the decrees of councils, and the writings of the learned, and

sunk, by degrees, under their united force.

APOLOGY. A word derived from two Greek words, signifying _from_ and

_speech_, and thus in its primary sense, and always in theology, it

means a defence from attack; an answer to objections. Thus the Greek

word, ἀπολογία, from which it comes, is, in Acts xxii. 1, translated by

_defence_; in xxv. 16, by _answer_; and in 2 Cor. vii. 11, by “clearing

of yourselves.” There were several _Apologies_ for Christianity composed

in the second century, and among these, those of Justin Martyr and

Tertullian are best known.

APOSTASY. (ἀποστάσις, falling away.) A forsaking or renouncing of our

religion, either formally, by an open declaration in words, or

virtually, by our actions. The word has several degrees of

signification. The primitive Christian Church distinguished several

kinds of apostasy: the first, of those who went entirely from

Christianity to Judaism. The second, of those who mingled Judaism and

Christianity together. The third, of those who complied so far with the

Jews, as to communicate with them in many of their unlawful practices,

without formally professing their religion; and the fourth, of those

who, after having been some time Christians, voluntarily relapsed into

Paganism. It is expressly revealed in Holy Scripture that there will be

a very general falling away from Christianity, or an apostasy, before

the second coming of our LORD. (2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 1; 2 Tim. iv.

3, 4.)

In the Romish Church the term _apostasy_ is also applied to a

renunciation of the monastic vow.

APOSTLE. A missionary, messenger, or envoy. The highest order in the

ministry were at first called Apostles; but the term is now generally

confined to those first bishops of the Church who received their

commission from our blessed LORD himself, and who were distinguished

from the bishops who succeeded them, by their having acted under the

immediate inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT, and by their having frequently

exercised the power of working miracles. Matthias was chosen into the

place of Judas Iscariot, when it was necessary that “another should take

his bishopric,” (Acts i. 20,) and is called an apostle. St. Paul also

and St. Barnabas are likewise styled apostles. So that, when we speak of

the _twelve_ apostles, we allude to them only as they were when our LORD

was on earth. Afterwards, even in the restricted sense, there were more

than twelve. But both while there were but eleven, and afterwards when

there were more, they were called _the twelve_, as the name of their

college, so to speak; as the LXXII. translators of the Old Testament

into Greek are called the LXX. All the apostles had equal power; a fact

which is emphatically asserted by St. Paul.

Our LORD’S first commission to his apostles was in the third year of his

public ministry, about eight months after their solemn election; at

which time he sent them out by two and two. (Matt. x. 5, &c.) They were

to make no provision of money for their subsistence in their journey,

but to expect it from those to whom they preached. They were to declare,

that the kingdom of heaven, or the Messiah, was at hand, and to confirm

their doctrine by miracles. They were to avoid going either to the

Gentiles or the Samaritans, and to confine their preaching to the people

of Israel. In obedience to their Master, the apostles went into all the

parts of Palestine inhabited by the Jews, preaching the gospel, and

working miracles. (Mark vi. 12.) The evangelical history is silent as to

the particular circumstances attending this first preaching of the

apostles, and only informs us, that they returned, and told their Master

all that they had done. (Luke ix. 10.)

Their second commission, just before our LORD’S ascension into heaven,

was of a more extensive and particular nature. They were now not to

confine their preaching to the Jews, but to “go and teach all nations,

baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the

Holy Ghost.” (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) Accordingly they began publicly,

after our LORD’S ascension, to exercise the office of their ministry,

working miracles daily in proof of their mission, and making great

numbers of converts to the Christian faith. (Acts ii. 42–47.) This

alarmed the Jewish Sanhedrim; whereupon the apostles were apprehended,

and, being examined before the high priest and elders, were commanded

not to preach any more in the name of CHRIST. But this injunction did

not terrify them from persisting in the duty of their calling; for they

continued daily, in the temple, and in private houses, teaching and

preaching the gospel. (Acts ii. 46.)

After the apostles had exercised their ministry for twelve years in

Palestine, they resolved to disperse themselves in different parts of

the world, and agreed to determine by lot what parts each should take.

(_Clem. Alex. Apollonius._) According to this division, St. Peter went

into Pontus, Galatia, and those other provinces of the Lesser Asia. St.

Andrew had the vast northern countries of Scythia and Sogdiana allotted

to his portion. St. John’s was partly the same with St. Peter’s, namely

the Lesser Asia. St. Philip had the Upper Asia assigned to him, with

some parts of Scythia and Colchis. Arabia Felix fell to St.

Bartholomew’s share. St. Matthew preached in Chaldæa, Persia, and

Parthia. St. Thomas preached likewise in Parthia, as also to the

Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Indians. St. James the Less continued in

Jerusalem, of which Church he was bishop. St. Simon had for his portion

Egypt, Cyrene, Libya, and Mauritania; St. Jude, Syria and Mesopotamia;

and St. Matthias, who was chosen in the room of the traitor Judas,

Cappadocia and Colchis. Thus, by the dispersion of the apostles,

Christianity was very early planted in a great many parts of the world.

We have but very short and imperfect accounts of their travels and

actions.

In order to qualify the apostles for the arduous task of converting the

world to the Christian religion, (Acts ii.,) they were, in the first

place, miraculously enabled to speak the languages of the several

nations to whom they were to preach; and, in the second place, were

endowed with the power of working miracles, in confirmation of the

doctrines they taught; gifts which were unnecessary, and therefore

ceased, in the future ages of the Church, when Christianity came to be

established by the civil power.

The several apostles are usually represented with their respective

badges or attributes; St. Peter with the keys; St. Paul with a sword;

St. Andrew with a cross; St. James the Less with a fuller’s pole; St.

John with a cup, and a winged serpent flying out of it; St. Bartholomew

with a knife; St. Philip with a long staff, whose upper end is formed

into a cross; St. Thomas with a lance; St. Matthew with a hatchet; St.

Matthias with a battle-axe; St. James the Greater with a pilgrim’s

staff, and a gourd-bottle; St. Simon with a saw; and St. Jude with a

club.

APOSTLES’ CREED is used by the Church between the third part of the

daily service, namely, the lessons, and the fourth part, namely, the

petitions, that we may express that faith in what we have heard, which

is the ground of what we are about to ask. For as “faith cometh by

hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD,” (Rom. x. 17,) so we must “ask

in faith,” if we “think to receive anything of the LORD.” (James i. 6,

7.) For “how shall we call upon him, in whom we have not believed?”

(Rom. x. 14.) But as all the doctrines of Scripture, though equally

true, are not of equal importance, the more necessary articles have

been, from the beginning of Christianity, collected into one body,

called in Scripture, “the form of sound words” (2 Tim. i. 13); “the

words of faith” (1 Tim. iv. 6); “the principles of the doctrine of

CHRIST” (Heb. vi. 1); but in our common way of speaking at present, “the

Creed,” from the Latin word, _credo_, which signifies “I believe.” Now

the ancient Churches had many such creeds; some longer, some shorter;

differing on several heads in phrase, but agreeing in method and sense,

of which that called “the Apostles’ Creed” is one. And it deserves this

name, not so much from any certainty, or great likelihood, that the

apostles drew it up in these very expressions; though some, pretty

early, and many since, have imagined they did; as because it contains

the chief apostolic doctrines, and was used by a Church which, before it

grew corrupt, was justly respected as the chief apostolic settlement, I

mean, the Roman.—_Abp. Secker._

The opinion which ascribes the framing of this Creed to the apostles in

person, though as ancient as the first account we have of the Creed

itself from Ruffinus, in the year 390, is yet rendered highly

improbable, as by many collateral reasons, so especially by this

argument, that it is not appealed to in elder times as the sacred and

unalterable standard. And therefore our excellent Church with due

caution styles it, in her 8th Article, “that which is commonly called

the Apostles’ Creed.” But though it seems not to have been compiled or

formally drawn up by the apostles themselves, yet is its authority of

sufficient strength; since it may still be demonstrated to be the

apostles’, or rather the apostolic, creed, in three several respects.

First, as it is drawn from the fountains of apostolical Scripture.

Secondly, as it agrees in substance with the confessions of all orthodox

Churches, which make up the Apostolic Church in the extended meaning of

the word. Thirdly, as it was the creed of an Apostolic Church in the

restrained sense of that term, denoting a Church founded by the

apostles, as was that of Rome.—_Kennet._

Though this Creed be not of the apostles’ immediate framing, yet it may

be truly styled apostolical, not only because it contains the sum of the

apostles’ doctrine, but also because the age thereof is so great, that

its birth must be fetched from the very apostolic times. It is true, the

exact form of the present Creed cannot pretend to be so ancient by four

hundred years; but a form, not much different from it, was used long

before. Irenæus, the scholar of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John,

where he repeats a creed not much unlike to ours, assures us, that “the

Church, dispersed throughout the whole world, had received this faith

from the apostles and their disciples;” which is also affirmed by

Tertullian of one of his creeds, that “that rule of faith had been

current in the Church from the beginning of the gospel:” and, which is

observable, although there was so great a diversity of creeds, as that

scarce two Churches did exactly agree therein, yet the form and

substance of every creed was in a great measure the same; so that,

except there had been, from the very plantation of Christianity, a form

of sound words, or a system of faith, delivered by the first planters

thereof, it is not easy to conceive how all Churches should harmonize,

not only in the articles themselves into which they were baptized, but,

in a great measure also, in the method and order of them.—_Lord

Chancellor King._

The Creed itself was neither the work of one man, nor of one day; but

the composure of it was gradual. First, several of the articles therein

were derived from the very days of the apostles: these were the articles

of the existence of GOD, the Trinity; that JESUS was CHRIST, or the

SAVIOUR of the world; the remission of sins; and the resurrection of the

dead. Secondly, the others were afterwards added by the primitive

doctors and bishops, in opposition to gross heresies and errors that

sprung up in the Church.—It hath been received in all ages with the

greatest veneration and esteem. The ancients declare their respect and

reverence for it with the most noble and majestic expressions; and in

these latter times, throughout several centuries of years, so great a

deference hath been rendered thereunto, that it hath not only been used

in baptism, but in every public assembly it hath been usually, if not

always, read as the standard and basis of the Christian faith.—_Lord

King._

But neither this, nor any other creed, hath authority of its own equal

to Scripture, but derives its principal authority from being founded on

Scripture. Nor is it in the power of any man, or number of men, either

to lessen or increase the fundamental articles of the Christian faith:

which yet the Church of Rome, not content with this its primitive creed,

hath profanely attempted, adding twelve articles more, founded on its

own, that is, on no authority, to the ancient twelve, which stand on the

authority of GOD’S word. (See _Creed of Pope Pius IV_.) But our Church

hath wisely refused to go a step beyond the original form; since all

necessary truths are briefly comprehended in it, which it is the duty of

every one of us firmly to believe, and openly to profess. “For with the

heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is

made unto salvation.” (Rom. x. 10.)—_Abp. Secker._

The place of the Creed in our liturgy is, first, immediately after the

lessons of Holy Scripture, out of which it is taken; and since faith

comes by hearing GOD’S word, and the gospel doth not profit without

faith, therefore it is very fit, upon hearing thereof, we should

exercise and profess our faith. Secondly, the Creed is placed just

before the prayers, as being the foundation of our petitions; we cannot

“call on him, on whom we have not believed” (Rom. x. 14); and since we

are to pray to GOD the FATHER in the name of the SON, by the assistance

of the SPIRIT, for remission of sins and a joyful resurrection, we ought

first to declare that we believe in GOD the FATHER, the SON, and the

HOLY GHOST, and that there is remission here and resurrection hereafter

to be had for all true members of the Catholic Church, and then we may

be said to pray in faith. And hence St. Ambrose and St. Augustine advise

Christians to say it daily in their private devotions; and so our old

Saxon councils command all to learn and use it, not as a prayer, (as

some ignorantly or maliciously object,) but as a ground for our prayers,

and a reason for our faith and hope of their acceptance: upon which

account also, as soon as persecution ceased, and there was no danger of

the heathens overhearing it, the Creed was used in the public service.

And there are many benefits which we may receive by this daily use of

it. For, first, this fixes it firmly in our memories, that we may never

forget this blessed rule of our prayers, nor be at any time without this

necessary touchstone to try all doctrines by. Secondly, thus we daily

renew our profession of fidelity to Almighty GOD, and repeat that

watchword which was given us when we were first listed under CHRIST’S

banner, declaring thereby that we retain our allegiance to him and

remain his faithful servants and soldiers; and no doubt that will move

him the sooner to hear the prayers which we are now making to him for

his aid. Thirdly, by this we declare our unity amongst ourselves, and

show ourselves to be members of that holy Catholic Church, by and for

which these common prayers are made. Those who hold this one faith, and

those only, have a right to pray thus; nor can any other expect to be

admitted to join in them; and therefore this Creed is the symbol and

badge to manifest who are fit to make these prayers, and receive the

benefit of them.

Wherefore, in our daily use of this sacred form, let us observe these

rules:—First, to be heartily thankful to GOD for revealing these divine,

mysterious, and saving truths to us; and though the _Gloria_ be only set

at the end of St. Athanasius’s Creed, yet the duty of thanksgiving must

be performed upon every repetition of this Creed also. Secondly, we must

give our positive and particular assent to every article as we go along,

and receive it as an infallible oracle from the mouth of GOD; and for

this reason we must repeat it with an audible voice after the minister,

and in our mind annex that word, “I believe,” to every particular

article; for, though it be but once expressed in the beginning, yet it

must be supplied and is understood in every article; and to show consent

the more evidently, we must stand up when we repeat it, and resolve to

stand up stoutly in defence thereof, so as, if need were, to defend it,

or seal the truth of it, with our blood. Thirdly, we must devoutly apply

every article, as we go along, to be both a ground for our prayers and a

guide to our lives; for if we rightly believe the power of the FATHER,

the love of the SON, and the grace of the HOLY GHOST, it will encourage

us (who are members of the Catholic Church) to pray heartily for all

spiritual and temporal blessings, and give us very lively hopes of

obtaining all our requests. Again, since these holy principles were not

revealed and selected out from all other truths, for any other end but

to make us live more holily, therefore we must consider, how it is fit

that man should live, who believes that GOD the FATHER is his Creator,

GOD the SON his Redeemer, and GOD the HOLY GHOST his Sanctifier; who

believes that he is a member of that Catholic Church, wherein there is a

communion of saints, and remission for sins, and shall be a resurrection

of the body, and a life everlasting afterwards. No man is so ignorant

but he can tell what manner of persons they ought to be who believe

this; and it is evident, that whoever firmly and fully believes all

this, his faith will certainly and necessarily produce a holy

life.—_Dean Comber._

In the First Book of King Edward VI., the Apostles’ Creed followed the

lesser litany, “Lord, have mercy upon us,”—and immediately after it was

repeated the Lord’s Prayer. The alteration, as it at present stands, was

made in the Second Book.—_Jebb._

APOSTOLIC, APOSTOLICAL, something that relates to the apostles, or

descends from them. Thus we say, the apostolical age, apostolical

character, apostolical doctrine, constitutions, traditions, &c. In the

primitive Church it was an appellation given to all such Churches as

were founded by the apostles, and even to the bishops of those Churches,

as the reputed successors of the apostles. These were confined to four:

Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In succeeding ages, the other

Churches assumed the same title, on account, principally, of the

conformity of their doctrine with that of the Churches which were

apostolical by foundation, and because all bishops held themselves

successors of the apostles, or acted in their respective dioceses with

the authority of apostles. The first time the term _apostolical_ is

attributed to bishops, is in a letter of Clovis to the Council of

Orleans, held in 511; though that king does not in it expressly

denominate them apostolical, but _apostolicâ sede dignissimi_, highly

worthy of the apostolical see. In 581, Guntram calls the bishops,

assembled at Macon, apostolical pontiffs. In progress of time, the

bishop of Rome increasing in power above the rest, and the three

patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem having fallen into

the hands of the Saracens, the title apostolical came to be restricted

to the pope and his Church alone. At length some of the popes, and among

them Gregory the Great, not content to hold the title by this tenure,

began to insist that it belonged to them by another and peculiar right,

as the successors of St. Peter. In 1046, the Romish Council of Rheims

declared, that the pope was the sole apostolical primate of the

Universal Church.

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS AND CANONS. These two collections of

ecclesiastical rules and formularies were attributed, in the early ages

of the Church of Rome, to Clement of Rome, who was supposed to have

committed them to writing from the mouths of the apostles, whose words

they pretended to record. The authority thus claimed for these writings

has, however, been entirely disproved; and it is generally supposed by

critics, that they were chiefly compiled during the second and third

centuries; or that, at least, the greater part must be assigned to a

period before the first Nicene Council. We find references to them in

the writings of Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Athanasius, writers of the

third and fourth centuries. A modern critic supposes them not to have

attained their present form until the fifth century. The _Constitutions_

are comprised in eight books. In these the apostles are frequently

introduced as speakers. They contain rules and regulations concerning

the duties of Christians in general, the constitution of the Church, the

offices and duties of ministers, and the celebration of Divine worship.

The tone of morality which runs through them is severe and ascetic. They

forbid the use of all personal decorations and attention to appearance,

and prohibit the reading of the works of heathen authors. They enjoin

Christians to assemble twice every day in the church for prayers and

psalmody, to observe various fasts and festivals, and to keep the

sabbath (i. e. the seventh day of the week) as well as the LORD’S day.

They require extraordinary marks of respect and reverence towards the

ministers of religion; commanding Christians to honour a bishop as a

king or a prince, and even as a kind of God upon earth, to render to him

absolute obedience, to pay him tribute, and to approach him through the

deacons or servants of the Church, as we come to GOD only through

CHRIST! This latter kind of (profane) comparison is carried to a still

greater extent, for the deaconesses are declared to resemble the HOLY

SPIRIT, inasmuch as they are not able to do anything without the

deacons. Presbyters are said to represent the apostles; and the rank of

Christian teachers is declared to be higher than that of magistrates and

princes. We find here, also, a complete liturgy or form of worship for

Christian churches; containing not only a description of ecclesiastical

ceremonies, but the prayers to be used at their celebration.

This general description of the contents of the books of Constitutions

is alone enough to prove that they are no productions of the apostolic

age. Mention also occurs of several subordinate ecclesiastical officers,

such as readers and exorcists, who were not introduced into the Church

until the third century. And there are manifest contradictions between

several parts of the work. The general style in which the Constitutions

are written is such as had become prevalent during the third century.

It is useless to inquire who was the real author of this work; but the

date and probable design of the forgery are of more importance, and may

be more easily ascertained. Epiphanius, towards the end of the fourth

century, appears to be the first author who speaks of these books under

their present title, Apostolical Constitutions. But he refers to the

work only as one containing much edifying matter, without including it

among the writings of the apostles; and indeed he expressly says that

many persons had doubted of its genuineness. One passage, however, to

which Epiphanius refers, speaks a language directly the reverse of what

we find in the corresponding passage of the work now extant; so that it

appears probable that the Apostolical Constitutions, which that author

used, have been corrupted and interpolated since his time. On the whole,

it appears probable, from internal evidence, that the Apostolical

Constitutions were compiled during the reigns of the heathen emperors,

towards the end of the third century, or at the beginning of the fourth;

and that the compilation was the work of some one writer (probably a

bishop) of the Eastern Church. The advancement of episcopal dignity and

power appears to have been the chief design of the forgery.

If we regard the Constitutions as a production of the third century,

(containing remnants of earlier compositions,) the work possesses a

certain kind of value. It contributes to give us an insight into the

state of Christian faith, the condition of the clergy and inferior

ecclesiastical officers, the worship and discipline of the Church, and

other particulars, at the period to which the composition is referred.

The growth of episcopal power and influence, and the derivation of the

episcopal authority from the apostles, is here clearly shown. Many of

the regulations prescribed, and many of the moral and religious remarks,

are good and edifying; and the prayers especially breathe, for the most

part, a spirit of simple and primitive Christianity. But the work is by

no means free from traces of superstition; and it is occasionally

disfigured by mystical interpretations and applications of Holy

Scripture, and by needless refinements in matters of ceremony. We find

several allusions to the events of apostolical times; but occurrences

related exclusively in such a work, are altogether devoid of

credibility, especially as they are connected with the design of the

compiler to pass off his book as a work of the apostles.

The _Canons_ relate chiefly to various particulars of ecclesiastical

polity and Christian worship; the regulations which they contain being,

for the most part, sanctioned with the threatening of deposition and

excommunication against offenders. The first allusion to this work by

name, is found in the Acts of the Council which assembled at

Constantinople in the year 394, under the presidency of Nectarius,

bishop of that see. But there are expressions in earlier councils, and

writers of the same century, which appear to refer to the Canons,

although not named. In the beginning of the sixth century, fifty of

these Canons were translated from the Greek into Latin by the Roman

abbot, Dionysius the Younger; and, about the same time, thirty-five

others were appended to them in a collection made by John, patriarch of

Constantinople. Since that time, the whole number have been regarded as

genuine in the East; while only the first fifty have been treated with

equal respect in the West. It appears highly probable, that the original

collection was made about the middle of the third century, or somewhat

later, in one of the Asiatic Churches. The author may have had the same

design as that which appears to have influenced the compiler of the

Apostolical Constitutions. The eighty-fifth Canon speaks of the

Constitutions as sacred books; and from a comparison of the two books,

it is plain that they are either the production of one and the same

writer, or that, at least, the two authors were contemporary, and had a

good understanding with each other. The rules and regulations contained

in the Canons are such as were gradually introduced and established

during the second and third centuries. In the canon or list of sacred

books of the New Testament, given in this work, the Revelation of St.

John is omitted; but the two Epistles of St. Clement and Apostolical

Constitutions are inserted.—_Augusti._

APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. An appellation usually given to the writers of the

first century, who employed their pens in the cause of Christianity. Of

these writers, Cotelerius, and after him Le Clerc, have published a

collection in two volumes, accompanied both with their own annotations

and the remarks of other learned men. Among later editions may be

particularly mentioned that by the Rev. Dr. Jacobson, Regius Professor

of Divinity at Oxford, which, however, does not include Barnabas or

Hermas. See also The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers, by

Archbishop Wake, and a translation of them in one volume 8vo, by the

Rev. Temple Chevallier, B. D., formerly Hulsean lecturer in the

University of Cambridge. The names of the apostolical fathers are,

Clement, bishop of Rome, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, bishop

of Smyrna, and Hermas. To these Barnabas the apostle is usually added.

The epistles and other writings of these eminent men are still extant. A

more admirable appendix to the pure word of GOD, and a more trustworthy

comment on the principles taught by inspired men, cannot be conceived.

As eye-witnesses of the order and discipline of the Church, while all

was fresh and new from the hands of the apostles, their testimony forms

the very summit of uninspired authority. None could better know these

things than those who lived and wrote at the very time. None deserve a

greater reverence than they who proclaimed the gospel, while the echo of

inspired tongues yet lingered in the ears of the people.

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. (See _Succession_.) The line in which the

ministry of the Church is handed on from age to age: the _corporate_

lineage of the Christian clergy, just as in the Jewish Church there was

a _family_ lineage. The Church of England maintains the apostolical

succession in the preface to her Ordination Service. Those are said to

be in apostolical succession who have been sent to labour in the LORD’S

vineyard, by bishops who were consecrated by those who, in their turn,

were consecrated by others, and these by others, until the derived

authority is traced to the apostles, and through them to the great Head

of the Church. The apostolical succession of the ministry is essential

to the right administration of the holy sacraments. The clergy of the

Church of England can trace their connexion with the apostles by links,

not one of which is wanting, from the times of St. Paul and St. Peter to

our own.—See _Appendix to Rose’s Commission and consequent Duties of the

Clergy: Perceval’s Doctrine of the Apostolical Succession_, 2nd edition;

_Sinclair (Rev. John) on the Episcopal Succession_; and _Courayer’s

Defence of the English Ordinations_.

APOSTOLICI, or APOTACTICI. Heretics in Christianity, who sprung from the

Encratites and Cathari, and took these names because they pretended to

be the only followers of the apostles, and because they made a

profession of never marrying, and renounced riches. Epiphanius observes,

that these vagabonds, who appeared about the year 260, for the most part

made use of the apocryphal Acts of St. Andrew and St. Thomas. There was

another sect of this name, about the twelfth century, who were against

marriage, and never went without lewd women: they also despised infant

baptism, would not allow of purgatory, invocation of saints, and prayers

for the dead, and called themselves the true body of the Church,

condemning all use of flesh with the Manichæans.—_Bingham, Antiq. Chr.

Ch._

APOTACTITÆ, or APOTACTICI. (See _Apostolici_.)

APPARITOR. Apparitors (so called from the principal branch of their

office, which consists in summoning persons to appear) are officers

appointed to execute the orders and decrees of the ecclesiastical

courts. The proper business and employment of an apparitor is to attend

in court; to receive such commands as the judge shall please to issue

forth; to convene and cite the defendants into court; to admonish or

cite the parties to produce witnesses, and the like. Apparitors are

recognised by the 138th English Canon, which wholly relates to

them.—_Jebb._

APPEAL. The provocation of a cause from an inferior to a superior judge.

(1 Kings xviii.; Acts xxv.) Appeals are divided into judicial and

extra-judicial. Judicial appeals are those made from the actual sentence

of a court of judicature. In this case the force of such sentence is

suspended until the cause is determined by the superior judge.

Extra-judicial appeals are those made from extra-judicial acts, by which

a person either is, or is likely to be, wronged. He therefore resorts to

the legal protection of a superior judge. By the civil law, appeals

ought to be made _gradatim_; but by the canon law, as it existed before

the Reformation, they might be made _omisso medio_, and _immediately to

the_ pope; who was reputed to be the ordinary judge of all Christians in

all causes, having a concurrent power with all ordinaries. Appeals to

the pope were first sent from England to Rome in the reign of King

Stephen, by the pope’s legate, Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester (A.

D. 1135–1154). Prior to that period, the pope was not permitted to enjoy

any appellate jurisdiction in England. William the Conqueror refused to

do him homage. Anglo-Saxon Dooms do not so much as mention the pope’s

name: and the laws of Edward the Confessor assert the royal supremacy in

the following words:—“Rex autem, qui vicarius Summi Regis est, ad hoc

constitutus est, ut regnum et populum Domini, et super omnia sanctam

ecclesiam, regat et defendat ab injuriosis; maleficos autem destruat et

evellat.” The Penitential of Archbishop Theodore (A. D. 668–690)

contains no mention of appeals to Rome; and in the reign of Henry II.,

at the Council of Clarendon, (A. D. 1164,) it was enacted, “De

appellationibus si emerserint ab archidiacono debebit procedi ad

episcopum, ab episcopo ad archiepiscopum, et si archiepiscopus defuerit

in justitia exhibenda, ad dominum regem perveniendum est postremo, ut

præcepto ipsius in curia archiepiscopi controversia terminetur; ita quod

non debeat ultra procedi absque assensu domini regis.” Notwithstanding

this law, and the statutes made against “provisors” in the reigns of

Edward I., Edward III., Richard II., and Henry V., appeals used to be

forwarded to Rome until the reign of Henry VIII., when, by the statutes

of the 24 Henry VIII. c. 12, and the 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, all appeals

to the pope from England were legally abolished. By these statutes,

appeals were to be finally determined by the High Court of Delegates, to

be appointed by the king in chancery under the great seal. This

jurisdiction was, in 1832, by 2 & 3 William IV. c. 92, transferred from

the High Court of Delegates to the Judicial Committee of the Privy

Council; whose “report or recommendation,” when sanctioned by the Crown,

is a final judgment.

The Crown, however, used to have the power to grant a commission of

review after the decision of an appeal by the High Court of Delegates.

(26 Henry VIII. c. 1; 1 Eliz. c. 1, _Goodman’s case_ in Dyer’s Reports.)

This prerogative Queen Mary exercised by granting a review after a

review in Goodman’s case, regarding the deanery of Wells. (See Lord

Campbell’s Judgment in the Court of Queen’s Bench in _Gorham_ v. _the

Bishop of Exeter_.) It is a remarkable fact that, although the statutes

for restraint of appeals had been repealed on Queen Mary’s accession, no

appeal in Goodman’s case was permitted to proceed out of England to the

pope.

The commissions of review were not granted by Queen Mary under the

authority of Protestant enactments, but by virtue of the common law,

regarding the regalities of the Crown of England. It does not appear

that by the 2 & 3 William IV. c. 92, 3 & 4 William IV. c. 41, 7 & 8

Vict., the prerogative is interfered with; and that the Crown is

compelled to adopt the “report or recommendation” of the Judicial

Committee of the Privy Council: on the contrary, the sovereign is quite

free to sanction or reject such report, which only becomes valid as a

decision on the royal assent being given. The ancient Appellant Court of

Delegates still subsists in Ireland.

APPELLANT. Generally, one who appeals from the decision of an inferior

court to a superior. Particularly those among the French clergy were

called _appellants_, who appealed from the bull _Unigenitus_, issued by

Pope Clement in 1713, either to the pope better informed, or to a

general council. This is one of the many instances in which the boasted

unity of the Roman obedience has been signally broken; the whole body of

the French clergy, and the several monasteries, being divided into

appellants and non-appellants.

APPROPRIATION is the annexing of a benefice to the use of a spiritual

corporation. This was frequently done in England after the Norman

Conquest. The secular clergy were then Saxons or Englishmen; and most of

the nobility, bishops, and abbots being Normans, they had no kind of

regard to the secular clergy, but reduced them as low as they could to

enrich the monasteries; and this was the reason of so many

appropriations. But some persons are of opinion, that it is a question

undecided, whether princes or popes first made appropriations: though

the oldest of which we have any account were made by princes; as, for

instance, by the Saxon kings, to the abbey of Crowland; by William the

Conqueror, to Battle Abbey; and by Henry I., to the church of Salisbury.

It is true the popes, who were always jealous of their usurped supremacy

in ecclesiastical affairs, did in their decretals assume this power to

themselves, and granted privileges to several religious orders, to take

appropriations from laymen: but in the same grant they were usually

required to be answerable to the bishop _in spiritualibus_, and to the

abbot or prior _in temporalibus_, which was the common form of

appropriations till the latter end of the reign of Henry II. For at

first those grants were not _in proprios usus_: it was always necessary

to present a clerk to the bishop upon the avoidance of a benefice, who,

upon his institution, became vicar, and for that reason an appropriation

and a rectory were then inconsistent. But because the formation of an

appropriation was a thing merely spiritual, the patron usually

petitioned the bishop to appropriate the church; but the king was first

to give licence to the monks that, _quantum in nobis est_, the bishop

might do it. The king being supreme ordinary, might of his own authority

make an appropriation without the consent of the bishop, though this was

seldom done. Appropriations at first were made only to spiritual

persons, such as were qualified to perform Divine service; then by

degrees they were extended to spiritual corporations, as deans and

chapters; and lastly to priories, upon the pretence that they had to

support hospitality; and lest preaching should by this means be

neglected, an invention was found out to supply that defect by a vicar,

as aforesaid; and it was left to the bishop to be a moderator between

the monks and the vicar, for his maintenance out of the appropriated

tithes; for the bishop could compel the monastery to which the church

was appropriated to set out a convenient portion of tithes, and such as

he should approve, for the maintenance of the vicar, before he confirmed

the appropriation.

It is true the bishops in those days favoured the monks so much, that

they connived at their setting out a portion of small tithes for the

vicar, and permitted them to reserve the great tithes to themselves.

This was a fault intended to be remedied by the statute 15 Rich. II.

cap. 6; by which it was enacted, that in every licence made of an

appropriation this clause should be contained, viz. that the diocesan

should ordain that the vicar shall be well and sufficiently endowed. But

this statute was eluded; for the abbots appointed one of their own monks

to officiate; and therefore the parliament, in the 4th year of Henry IV.

cap. 12, provided that the vicar should be a secular clergyman,

canonically instituted and inducted into the church, and _sufficiently_

endowed; and that no regular should be made vicar of a church

appropriate. But long before the making of these statutes the kings of

England made appropriation of the churches of Feversham and Milton in

Kent, and other churches, to the abbey of St. Augustine in Canterbury,

by these words: “Concessimus, &c., pro nobis, &c., abbati et conventui,

&c., quod ipsi ecclesias predictas appropriare ac eas sic appropriatas

in proprios usus tenere possint sibi et successoribus in perpetuum.” The

like was done by several of the Norman nobility, who came over with the

king, upon whom he bestowed large manors and lands; and out of which

they found tithes were then paid, and so had continued to be paid even

from the time they were possessed by the Saxons: but they did not regard

their law of tithing, and therefore they held it reasonable to

appropriate all, or at least some part of, those tithes to those

monasteries which they had founded, or to others as they thought fit;

and in such cases they reserved a power to provide for him who served

the cure; and this was usually paid to stipendiary curates. But

sometimes the vicarages were endowed, and the very endowment was

expressed in the grant of the appropriation, viz. that the church should

be appropriated upon condition that a vicarage should be endowed; and

this was left to the care of the bishop. But whenever the vicar had a

competent subsistence by endowment, the monks took all opportunities to

lessen it; and this occasioned several decretals prohibiting such usage

without the bishop’s consent, and that no custom should be pleaded for

it, where he that served the cure had not a competent subsistence. And

it has been a question whether an appropriation is good when there is no

endowment of a vicarage, because the statute of Henry IV. positively

provides that vicarages shall be endowed. But it is now settled, that if

it is a vicarage in reputation, and vicars have been instituted and

inducted to the church, it shall be presumed that the vicarage was

originally endowed. Thus much for the tithes: but the abbot and convent

had not only the tithes of the appropriate churches, but the right of

patronage too; for that was extinct, as to the former patron, by the

appropriation, unless he had reserved the presentation to himself; and

that made the advowson disappropriate, and the church presentable as

before, but not by the old patron, but by the abbot and convent, who

were then bound, upon a vacancy, to present a person to the bishop.

Sometimes the bishop would refuse the person presented unless they

consented to such an allowance for his maintenance as he thought fit,

and therefore they would present none. This occasioned the making

another decretal, which gave the bishop power to present; but this did

not often happen, because the monks were favoured by the bishops; that

is, the poorer sort, for the rich would not accept his kindness. They

always got their appropriations confirmed by the pope, and their

churches exempted from the jurisdiction of the bishop. But now all those

exemptions are taken away by the statute 31 Henry VIII. cap. 13, and the

ordinary is restored to his ancient right. Before giving an account of

that statute, it will not be improper to mention the forms of

appropriations both before and since that time. A licence being obtained

of the king as supreme ordinary, and the consent from the diocesan,

patron, and incumbent, thereupon the bishop made the grant.

By the aforesaid statute, those appropriations which were made formerly

by bishops, and enjoyed only by religious houses, are now become the

inheritance of laymen; and though the bishop’s power in such cases is

not mentioned in the statute, yet the law leaves all matters of right

just as they were before; for when those religious houses were

surrendered, the king was to have the tithes in the same manner as the

abbots had them in right of their monasteries; and there is a saving of

the rights and interests of all persons; so that, if before the

dissolution the vicar had an antecedent right to a competent

maintenance, and the bishop had power to allow it, it is not taken away

now.

This is the law of England, and it is founded on good reason: for tithes

were originally given for the service of the Church, and not for the

private use of monasteries; and it may be a question, whether a

monastery was capable of taking an appropriation, because it is not an

ecclesiastical body; for by the canons they could not preach, baptize,

or visit the sick, and they had no cure of souls. This matter was

disputed between St. Bernard, a Cistercian monk, and Peter the

Venerable: the first was dissatisfied that monks should take tithe from

the secular clergy, which was given to support them in attending the

cure of souls; the other answered him, that monks prayed for souls, but

tithes were not only given for prayers, but for preaching, and to

support hospitality. Upon the whole matter, appropriations may be made

by the joint consent of the queen, the ordinary, and the patron who hath

the inheritance of the advowson; and he must have the queen’s licence,

because she hath an interest in it as supreme ordinary: for it might

happen that the presentation may be devolved on her by lapse, and such

licence was usually granted when the church was void; but if it is

granted when the church is full, it does not make the appropriation

void, though such grant should be in general words, because, where it

may be taken in two intents, the one good, the other not, it shall be

expounded in that sense which may make the grant good. It is true, the

best way is to give a licence in particular words, importing that the

appropriation shall take effect after the death of the incumbent:

however, if it is a license _per verba de præsenti_, yet it is good for

the reason already mentioned. The bishop must likewise concur, for he

has an interest in the presentation, which may come to him by lapse

before it can be vested in the queen. Besides, an appropriation deprives

him of institution, for it not only carries the glebe and tithes, but

gives to the corporation a spiritual function, and supplies the

institution of the ordinary: for in the very instrument of appropriation

it is united and given to the body corporate _in proprios usus_, that

is, that they shall be perpetual parsons there: this must be intended

where there are no vicarages endowed, and yet they cannot have the cure

of souls because they are a body politic; but the vicar who is endowed

and comes in by their appointment, has the cure.

APSE, or APSIS. A semicircular or polygonal termination of the choir, or

other portion of a church. The word signifies in Greek a spherical arch.

It was called in Latin _testudo_, or _concha_, from the same reason that

a hemispherical recess in the school-room at Westminster was called _the

shell_. The ancient Basilicas, as may still be seen at Rome, had

universally a semicircular apse, round which the superior clergy had

their seats; at the upper end was the bishop’s throne; the altar was

placed on the chord of the arc; the transept, or gallery, intervened

between the apse or the choir. There the inferior clergy, singers, &c.,

were stationed, and there the lessons were read from the ambos. (See

_Choir_ and _Chaunt_.) This form was generally observed, at least in

large churches, for many ages, of which Germany affords frequent

specimens. And as Mr. Neale has shown in his very valuable remarks on

the Eastern churches, (_Hist. of the Holy Greek Church_,) the apse is

the almost invariable form even in parish churches in the East. Of this

arrangement there are traces in England. Then large Saxon churches, as

we collect from history, generally had an eastern apse at least, and

often several others. In Norman churches of large size, the apse was

very frequent, and it was repeated in several parts of the church. These

inferior apses represented the oriental _exedræ_, which usually

terminate their sacristies. Norwich and Peterborough cathedrals convey a

good impression of the general character of Norman churches in this

respect. Traces of the apse are found also at Winchester, Rochester,

Ely, Lincoln, Ripon, Gloucester, and Worcester cathedrals, besides St.

Alban’s, Tewkesbury, and other conventual churches. So also at

Canterbury, where the apse seems to have been disturbed by subsequent

arrangements. But it is remarkable that the ancient archiepiscopal chair

stood behind the altar in a sort of apse till late in the last century.

Traces of the ancient apse at Chester have been discovered of late

years. In small churches, as Steetley, Derbyshire, and Birkin,

Yorkshire, the eastern apse alone is found, nor is this at all a

universal feature. See Mr. Hussey’s _Notice of recent discoveries in

Chester Cathedral_. There are three very interesting English specimens

in Herefordshire, viz. as at Kilpech, Moccas, and Peter Church; all

small parish churches, and of Norman date; and with regular chancel

below the apse. In the early British and Irish churches there is no

trace of an apse, even in those which the learned Dr. Petrie, in his

essay on round towers, attributes to the 5th and 6th centuries. With the

Norman style the apse was almost wholly discontinued, though an early

English apse occurs at Tidmarsh, Berkshire, and a decorated apse at

Little Maplestead; the latter is, however, altogether an exceptional

case. There seems to have been some tendency to reproduce the apse in

the fifteenth century, as at Trinity church, Coventry, and Henry VII.’s

chapel, Westminster; but the latter examples entirely miss the breadth

and grandeur of the Norman apse. Yet the later styles might have had one

great advantage in the treatment of this feature in their flying

buttresses spanning the outer aisle of the apse, which is often so

striking a feature in foreign churches, and to which the perpendicular

clerestory to the Norman apse of Norwich makes some approach. Some

writers have confounded the apse with the choir or chancel; and think

that, according to primitive usage, the holy table ought to stand

between the latter and the nave: whereas in fact it always stood above

the choir; so that in churches where there is no apse (and none was

required when there were no collegiate or capitular clergy) its proper

place is close to the eastern wall of the church. See _Cathedral_.

AQUARII. A sect of heretics who consecrated their pretended eucharist

with water only, instead of wine, or wine mingled with water. This they

did under the delusion that it was universally unlawful to drink wine;

although, as St. Chrysostom says, our blessed LORD instituted the holy

eucharist in wine, and himself drank wine at his communion table, and

after his resurrection, as if by anticipation to condemn this pernicious

heresy. It is lamentable to see so bold an impiety revived in the

present day, when certain men, under the cloak of temperance, pretend a

eucharist without wine, or any fermented liquor. These heretics are not

to be confounded with those against whom St. Cyprian discourses at large

in his letter to Cæcilian, who, from fear of being discovered, from the

smell of wine, by the heathen in times of persecution, omitted the wine

in the eucharist cup. It was indeed very wrong and unworthy of the

Christian name, but far less culpable than the pretence of a temperance

above that of CHRIST and the Church, in the _Aquarii_. Origen engaged in

a disputation with them.—_Epiph. Hæres._ xlvi.; _August. de Hæres._ c.

46.; _Theodoret, de Fab. Hæret._ lib. i. cap. 20.; _Cyprian_, Ep. lxiii.

_ad Cæcilium._; _Conc. Carth._ iii. can. xxiv.; _Bingham_.

ARABICS, or ARABIANS. Heretics who appeared in Arabia in the third

century. According to Eusebius and St. Augustine, they taught that the

soul died, and was corrupted with the body, and that they were to be

raised together at the last day.

ARCADE. In church architecture, a series of arches supported by pillars

or shafts, whether belonging to the construction, or used in relieving

large surfaces of masonry: the present observations will be confined to

the latter, that is, to ornamental arcades.

These were introduced early in the Norman style, and were used very

largely to its close, the whole base story of exterior and interior

alike, and the upper portions of towers and of high walls being often

quite covered with them. They were either of simple or of intersecting

arches: it is needless to say that the latter are the most elaborate in

work, and the most ornamental; they are accordingly reserved in general

for the richer portions of the fabric. There is, moreover, another, and

perhaps even more effective, way of complicating the arcade, by placing

an arcade within and behind another, so that the wall is doubly

recessed, and the play of light and shadow greatly increased. The

decorations of the transitional, until very late in the style, are so

nearly those of the Norman, that we need not particularize the

semi-Norman arcade. In the next style the simple arcade is, of course,

most frequent. This, like the Norman, often covers very large surfaces.

Foil arches are often introduced at this period, and greatly vary the

effect. The reduplication of arcades is now managed differently from the

former style. Two arcades, perfect in all their parts, are set the one

behind the other, but the shaft of the outer is opposite to the arch of

the inner series, the outer series is also more lofty in its

proportions, and the two are often of differently constructed arches, as

at Lincoln, where the outer series is of trefoil, the inner of simple

arches, or _vice versâ_, the two always being different. The effect of

this is extremely beautiful.

[Illustration:

Norman Arcade from Canterbury.

]

But the most exquisite arcades are those of the Geometrical period,

where each arch is often surmounted by a crocketted pediment, and the

higher efforts of sculpture are tasked for their enrichment, as in the

glorious chapter-house of Salisbury, Southwell, and York; these are,

however, usually confined to the interior. In the Decorated period

partially, and in the Perpendicular entirely, the arcade gave place to

panelling, greatly to the loss of effect, for no delicacy or intricacy

of pattern can compensate for the bright light and deep shadows of the

Norman and Early English arcades.

ARCANI DISCIPLINA. The name given to a part of the discipline of the

early Church in withdrawing from public view the sacraments and higher

mysteries of our religion: a practice founded on a reverence for the

sacred mysteries themselves, and to prevent their being exposed to the

ridicule of the heathen. Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria

are the first who mention any such custom in the Church. And the

Disciplina Arcani gradually fell into disuse after the time of

Constantine, when Christianity had nothing to fear from its

enemies.—_Bingham. Augusti._

ARCH. All architecture may be divided into the architecture of the

_entablature_ and of the _arch_, and as the very terms denote, _the

arch_ is the differential of the latter. Romanesque and Gothic fall

under this head. Our view of the arch is limited to a description of its

several forms; an estimate of its effects on style, and its mechanical

construction, being beyond our province.

[Illustration:

Semicircular. Horse-shoe. Stilted.

]

The Saxon and the Norman arch were alike _semicircular_ in their normal

form, though in Norman buildings we often find a greater arc of a

circle, or “_horse-shoe_” arch, or the semicircle is “_stilted_:” to one

or other of which constructions it was necessary to resort when an arch

of higher proportion than a semicircle was required. In the middle of

the twelfth century the _pointed arch_ was introduced. It was used for a

long time together with the semicircle, and often with an entire absence

of all but Norman details; and it is worthy of note that the pointed

arch is first used in construction, as in the great pier arches, and

evidently, therefore, from an appreciation of its mechanical value, and

not till afterwards in lighter portions, as windows and decorative

arcades. The pointed arch has three simple forms, the _equilateral_, the

_lancet_, and the _drop_ arch; the first described from the angles at

the base of an equilateral, the second of a triangle whose base is

greater, the third of a triangle whose base is less, than the sides.

These forms are common to every style, from Early English downwards. In

the Perpendicular period a more complex arch was introduced, struck

_from four centres_, all within or below the base of the arch. This

modification of the arch is of great importance, as involving

differences of construction in the fabric, especially in the vaulting,

so that it has a place in the history of Gothic architecture only

inferior to the introduction of the pointed arch.

[Illustration:

Equilateral. Lancet. Drop.

]

[Illustration:

Four-centred. Foil. Ogee.

]

There are, besides, other modifications of the arch, struck from more

than two centres, but these are either of less frequent occurrence, or

merely decorative. We may mention the _foil_ and the _ogee arch_; the

former struck from four centres, two without and two within the

resulting figure, _and flowing into one another_; the latter from

several centres, according to the number of foils, all generally within

the resulting figure, and _cutting one another_. The foil arch precedes

in history the foliation or cusping of arches and tracery, which it no

doubt suggested; the ogee arch came in with ogee forms of tracery and of

cusping, and outlived them.

ARCHBISHOP. An archbishop is the chief of the clergy in a whole

province; and has the inspection of the bishops of that province, as

well as of the inferior clergy, and may deprive them on notorious

causes. The archbishop has also his own diocese wherein he exercises

episcopal jurisdiction, as in his province he exercises archiepiscopal.

As archbishop, he, upon the receipt of the king’s writ, calls the

bishops and clergy within his province to meet in convocation. To him

all appeals are made from inferior jurisdictions within his province;

and, as an appeal lies from the bishops in person to him in person, so

it also lies from the consistory courts of his diocese to his

archiepiscopal court. During the vacancy of any see in his province he

is guardian of the spiritualities thereof, as the king is of the

temporalities; and, during such vacancy, all episcopal rights belong to

him. The archbishops in England have from time to time exercised a

visitatorial power over their suffragans, in use till the time of

Archbishop Laud. The archbishops of Ireland have immemorially visited

their suffragans triennially: the Episcopal Visitation being there

annual. (See _Stephens’ Edition of the Book of Common Prayer, with

notes_, vol. i. pp. 26–30.)

Some learned men are of opinion, that an archbishop is a dignity as

ancient as the apostles’ time, for there were _primi episcopi_ then,

though the name of archbishop was not known until some ages afterwards;

and that the apostle himself gave the first model of this government in

the Church, by vesting Titus with a superintendency over all Crete.

Certain it is that there were persons soon after that time, who, under

the name of metropolitans, exercised the same spiritual and

ecclesiastical functions as an archbishop; as for instance the bishop of

Carthage, who certainly assembled and presided in provincial councils,

and had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the bishops of Africa; and the

bishops of Rome, who had the like primacy in the _suburbiconian_

provinces, viz. middle and southern Italy, with Sicily, and other

adjacent islands. Moreover, the Apostolical Canons, which were the rule

of the Greek Church in the third century, mention a chief bishop in

every province, and most of them about the eighth century assumed the

title of archbishops; some of which were so in a more eminent degree,

viz. those of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, which were

the four principal cities of the empire. To these the archbishop of

Jerusalem was added by the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, because that

was the capital city of the Holy Land, and these five were called

patriarchs.

The archbishop of Canterbury is styled primate of all England and

metropolitan, and the archbishop of York primate of England. They have

the title of Grace, and Most reverend Father in GOD by Divine

Providence. There are two provinces or archbishoprics in England,

Canterbury and York. The archbishop of Canterbury has the precedency of

all the other clergy; next to him the archbishop of York. Each

archbishop has, within his province, bishops of several dioceses. The

archbishop of Canterbury has under him, within his province, Rochester,

London, Winchester, Norwich, Lincoln, Ely, Chichester, Salisbury,

Exeter, Bath and Wells, Worcester, Lichfield, Hereford, Landaff, St.

David’s, Bangor, and St. Asaph; and four founded by King Henry VIII.,

erected out of the ruins of dissolved monasteries, viz. Gloucester and

Bristol, now united into one, Peterborough, and Oxford. The archbishop

of York has under him six, viz. the bishop of Chester, erected by Henry

VIII., and annexed by him to the archbishopric of York, the bishops of

Durham, Carlisle, Ripon, and Manchester, and the Isle of Man, annexed to

the province of York by King Henry VIII. The dioceses of Ripon and

Manchester have been formed in the province of York within the last few

years, by act of parliament. The archbishop of Armagh is styled primate

of all Ireland. The archbishop of Dublin, primate of Ireland. Before the

late diminution of the Irish episcopate, there were two other

archbishops, viz. of Cashel, styled primate of Munster, and Tuam,

primate of Connaught. Under Armagh were the bishoprics of *Meath, *Down,

*Derry, Dromore, Raphoe, *Kilmore, and Clogher. Under Dublin, Kildare,

Ferns, and *Ossory. Under Cashel, *Limerick, *Cork, Cloyne, *Killaloe,

and Waterford. Under Tuam, Clonfert, Elphin, and Killala. At present

Cashel is a suffragan of Dublin, Tuam of Armagh; and only those

suffragan bishoprics marked with an asterisk are retained. The bishops

of Calcutta and Sydney, being metropolitans, are archbishops in reality,

though not in title.

ARCHDEACON. In the English branch of the united Church, and most

European Churches, each diocese is divided into archdeaconries and

parishes. Sometimes a diocese has but one archdeaconry; sometimes four

or five. But in Ireland there is but one archdeacon to each diocese

(several dioceses being often united under one bishop); and

archdeaconries, as ecclesiastical divisions, are there unknown. The

dioceses of Dublin and Ardfert may be regarded as exceptions, but not

with justice: as the archdeaconry of Glendaloch in the former, and of

Aghadoe in the latter, belonged originally to separate dioceses, which

have been drawn into the adjacent ones: so that the dividing boundaries

are now unknown. (_Jebb._) Over the diocese the bishop presides; over

the archdeaconry one of the clergy is appointed by the bishop to

preside, who must be a priest, and he is called an archdeacon; over the

parish the rector or vicar presides. An archdeacon was so called

anciently, from being the chief of the deacons, a most important office

at a very early period in the Christian Church.

The antiquity of this office is held to be so high by many Roman

Catholic writers, that they derive its origin from the appointment of

the seven deacons, and suppose that St. Stephen was the first

archdeacon: but there is no clear authority to warrant this conclusion.

Mention is also made of Laurentius, archdeacon of Rome, who suffered A.

D. 260; but although he was called archdeacon, (according to

Prudentius,) he was no more than the principal man of the seven deacons

who stood at the altar. “_Hic primus è septem viris qui stant ad aram

proximi._” (Prudent. Hymn. de St. Steph.) At Carthage the office appears

to have been introduced within the last forty years of the third

century, as St. Cyprian does not mention it, whereas in the persecution

of Diocletian Cecilian is described as archdeacon, under the bishop

Mensurius. St. Jerome says, “that the archdeacon was chosen out of the

deacons, and was the principal deacon in every church, just as the

archpresbyter was the principal presbyter.”

But even in St. Jerome’s time, the office of archdeacon had certainly

grown to great importance. His proper business was, to attend the bishop

at the altar; to direct the deacons and other inferior officers in their

several duties, for their orderly performance of Divine service; to

attend the bishop at ordinations, and to assist him in managing and

dispensing the revenues of the Church: but without anything that could

be called “_jurisdiction_,” in the present sense of the word, either in

the cathedral or out of it.

After the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 360, when it was ordained that no

bishop should be placed in country villages, the archdeacon, being

always near the bishop, and the person mainly intrusted by him, grew

into great credit and power, and came by degrees, as occasion required,

to be employed by him in visiting the clergy of the diocese, and in the

despatch of other matters relating to the episcopal care.

He was the bishop’s constant attendant and assistant, and, next to the

bishop, the eyes of the whole Church were fixed upon him; it was

therefore by no means unusual for him to be chosen the bishop’s

successor before the presbyters, and St. Jerome records, “that an

archdeacon thought himself injured if he was ordained a presbyter.”

(“_Certe qui primus fuerit ministrorum, quia per singula concionatur in

populos, et a pontificis latere non recedit, injuriam putat si presbyter

ordinetur._”—Hieron. Com. in Ezek. c. 48.)

The author of the “Apostolical Constitutions” calls him the Ὁ παρεστὼς

τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ; and St. Ambrose informs us, in the account which he gives

of Laurentius, archdeacon of Rome, that it belonged to him “to minister

the cup to the people when the bishop celebrated the eucharist, and had

administered the bread before him.”—_Ambros. de Offic._ lib. i. c. 41.

At the beginning of the seventh century, he seems to have been fully

possessed of the chief care and inspection of the diocese in

subordination to the bishop.

But the authority of the archdeacon, in ancient times, was chiefly a

power of inquiry and inspection; and the gradual growth of his

“_jurisdiction_,” properly so called, during the middle ages, is a

subject of difficult inquiry. Pope Clement V. gives an archdeacon the

title of “_oculus Episcopi_,” saying that “he is in the bishop’s place,

to correct and amend all such matters as ought to be corrected and

amended by the bishop himself, unless they be of such an arduous nature,

as that they cannot be determined without the presence of his superior

the bishop.”

Regularly, the archdeacon cannot inflict any punishment, but can only

proceed by “_precepts_” and “_admonitions_.”

Beyond this, all the rights that any archdeacon enjoys, subsist by

_grants_ from the bishop, made either _voluntarily_, or of _necessity_,

or by _composition_. (See the case of composition made between the

bishop of Lincoln and his archdeacons, in Gibson’s _Codex_, vol. ii. p.

1548.)

As to the divisions in England of dioceses into archdeaconries, and the

assignment of particular divisions to particular archdeaconries, this is

supposed to have begun a little after the Norman conquest. We meet with

no archdeacons _vested with any kind of jurisdiction_ in the Saxon

times. Archbishop Lanfranc was the first who made an archdeacon with

power of “jurisdiction,” in his see of Canterbury, and Thomas, the first

archbishop of York after the Conquest, was the first in England that

divided his diocese into archdeaconries; as did also Remigius, bishop of

Lincoln. When the Norman bishops, by reason of their baronies, were tied

by the Constitutions of Clarendon to strict attendance upon the kings in

their parliaments, they were obliged, for the administration of their

dioceses, to grant larger delegations of power to archdeacons, who

visited when they did not (_de triennio in triennium_). Archdeacons,

therefore, with us, could not have this power of jurisdiction by common

right, or by immemorial custom; the power which the archdeacon has is

derived from the bishop, although he himself is an ordinary, and is

recognised as such by the books of common law, which adjudge an

administration made by him to be good, though it is not expressed by

what authority, because, as done by the archdeacon, it is presumed to be

done “_jure ordinario_.”

In the 22nd of Henry I. we have the first account of their being

summoned to convocation; and in the 15th of Henry III., and in the 32nd

year of the same king, they were summoned by _express name_.

This being the original of archdeacons, it is impossible for them to

prescribe to an independency on the bishop, as it was declared in a

court of law they might, and endeavoured to be proved by the gloss on a

legatine constitution, where we read that an archdeacon may have a

customary jurisdiction distinct from the bishop, and to which he may

prescribe. But the meaning of it is, not that there can be an

archdeaconry by prescription, and independent of the bishop, but that

the archdeacon may prescribe to a particular jurisdiction, exempt from

the ordinary; which jurisdiction has customarily been enjoyed by him and

his predecessors time out of mind.

The archdeaconries of St. Alban’s, of Richmond, and Cornwall, are cases

of this kind; these jurisdictions are founded upon ancient customs, but

the archdeacon is still subordinate to the bishop in various ways; he

being, in our law, as he is according to the canon law, _vicarious

episcopi_.

According to Lyndwood and other canonists, he can inquire into crimes,

but not punish the criminals; he has, in one sense, according to the

casuists, a cure of souls, by virtue of his office, though it is _in

foro exteriori tantum et sine pastorali cura_; and has authority to

perform ministerial acts, as to suspend, excommunicate, absolve, &c.,

therefore by the ecclesiastical law he is obliged to residence. And that

may be one reason why he may not be chosen to execute any temporal

office that may require his attendance at another place; another reason

is because he is an ecclesiastical person. But he has no parochial cure,

and therefore an archdeaconry is not comprehended under the name of a

benefice with cure; for if one who has such benefice accepts an

archdeaconry, it is not void by our law, though it is so by the canon

law. And yet, though he has not any parochial cure, he is obliged to

subscribe the declaration pursuant to the statute, 14 Charles II. It is

true, he is not expressly named therein, but all persons in holy orders

are enjoined to subscribe by that statute; and because an archdeacon

must be in those orders, therefore he must likewise subscribe, &c. And

as he has a jurisdiction in certain cases, so, for the better exercising

the same, he has power to keep a court, which is called the Court of the

Archdeacon, or his commissary, and this he may hold in any place within

his archdeaconry. With regard to the Archdeacon’s Court, it was said by

the justices of the Common Pleas, 2 & 3 William and Mary, in the case of

Woodward and Fox, that though it might be supposed originally that the

jurisdiction within the diocese was lodged in the bishop, yet the

Archdeacon’s Court had, “time out of mind,” been settled as a _distinct

court_, and that the statute 24th of Henry VIII. chap. xii. takes notice

of the Consistory Court, which is the bishop’s, and of the Archdeacon’s

Court, from which there lies an appeal to the bishop’s. (See _Appeal_.)

There is an officer belonging to this court, called a registrar, whose

office concerns the administration of justice, and therefore the

archdeacon cannot by law take any money for granting it; if he does, the

office will be forfeited to the queen. Regarding parochial visitations

by archdeacons, see “Articles and Directions to the Incumbents and

Churchwardens within the Archdeaconry of Surrey,” in Gibson’s _Codex_,

vol. ii. p. 1551–1555; and see _post_, “Visitation.”

By 1 & 2 Vict. c. cvi. s. 2, an archdeacon may hold, with his

archdeaconry, two benefices under certain restrictions; or a benefice

and a cathedral preferment.

He is also, whilst engaged in his archidiaconal functions, considered to

be resident on his benefice. In cathedrals of the old foundation, the

archdeacons of the diocese, how numerous soever, were members of the

greater chapter, and had stalls in the choir. This was the universal

custom on the continent, and is uniformly the case in Ireland, as it was

also in Scotland. In the diocese of Dublin, the archdeacon of Dublin has

a stall in both of the cathedrals there, the archdeacon of Glendaloch

however only in that of St. Patrick’s.

The archdeacons of Ireland have not for a long time exercised any

jurisdiction. It is however evident from old documents that they did

exercise it in ancient times. The bishops hold annual visitation.

ARCHES, COURT OF. The Court of Arches is an ancient court of appeal,

belonging to the archbishop of Canterbury, whereof the judge is called

the Dean of _Arches_, because he anciently held his court in the church

of St. Mary-le-Bow (_Sancta Maria de Arcubus_); though all the spiritual

courts are now holden at Doctors’ Commons.

ARCHIMANDRITE. A name formerly given to the superior of a monastery: it

is derived from the word μάνδρα, by which monasteries were sometimes

called. The term Archimandrite is still retained in the Greek Church.

ARCHPRIEST, or ARCHIPRESBYTER. An ancient title of distinction,

corresponding to our title, _rural dean_, revived under most unhappy

pretensions among the Romanists of England, in the year 1598. These men,

finding themselves without bishops, importuned the pope, Clement VII.,

to supply their need; but instead of sending them, as they desired, a

number of bishops, he gave them but one ecclesiastical superior, Robert

Blackwell, who after all was merely a priest; an archpriest indeed he

was called, but as such having no episcopal power. In the early times

this title was given to the chief presbyter in each church, presiding

over the church next under the bishop, and taking care of all things

relating to the church in the bishop’s absence. In this case however,

instead of being placed in a cathedral church, or discharging the office

of rural dean, under a bishop or archdeacon, he was appointed to govern

all the Romish clergy of England and Scotland, without one or the other.

Here then we find Rome, while preserving an old title, inventing an

office hitherto unknown to the Christian world. And, when appointed,

what could the archpriest do? He could merely be a rural dean on a large

scale. He could merely overlook his brother clergy. He could not

discharge any functions properly episcopal. He could not ordain priests,

confirm children, nor consecrate chapels, should circumstances permit or

require. It is plain, then, that the archpriest was a very imperfect and

insufficient substitute for a bishop. The archpriest in many foreign

churches, in Italy especially, answers to our cathedral dean. In some

Italian dioceses, somewhat to our rural dean.—_Darwell._

ARCHONTICS. Heretics who appeared in the second century, about A. D.

175, and who were an offshoot of the Valentinians. They held a quantity

of idle stories concerning the Divinity and the creation of the world,

which they attributed to sundry authors; and hence they were called

Archontics, from the Greek word ἀρχων, which means prince or ruler.

ARIANS. (See _Councils_.) Heretics, so named from Arius, their first

founder: they denied the three persons in the Holy Trinity to be of the

same essence, and affirmed the Word to be a creature, and that once

(although before the beginning of _time_) he was not. They were

condemned by the Council of Nice, in 325.

The doctrine of Arius may be thus stated:—The SON sprang not from the

nature of the FATHER, but was created from nothing: he had, indeed, an

existence before the world, even before time, but not from eternity. He

is, therefore, in essence different from the FATHER, and is in the order

of creatures, whom he, however, precedes in excellence, as GOD created

all things, even time, by his instrumentality; whence he was called the

SON of GOD, the Logos, or Word of GOD. As a creature the SON is perfect,

and as like to the FATHER as a creature can be to the Creator. But as he

has received all things as a gift, from the favour of the FATHER,—as

there was a period in which he was not,—so there is an infinite distance

between him and the nature of the FATHER; of which nature he cannot even

form a perfect idea, but can enjoy only a defective knowledge of the

same. His will was originally variable, capable of good and of evil, as

is that of all other rational creatures: he is, comparatively at least,

free from sin; not by nature, but by his good use of his power of

election; the FATHER, therefore, foreseeing his perseverance in good,

imparted to him that dignity and sublimity above all other creatures,

which shall continue to be the reward of his virtues. Although he is

called GOD, he is not so in truth, but was deified in that sense in

which men, who have attained to a high degree of sanctity, may arrive at

a participation of the Divine prerogatives. The idea then of a

generation of the SON from the essence of the FATHER is to be absolutely

rejected.

This doctrine, which must have corresponded to the superficial

understandings, and to the yet half-pagan ideas, of many who then called

themselves Christians, attacked the very soul of the Christian doctrine

of the redemption; for, according to this doctrine, it was not GOD made

man, but a changeable creature, who effected the great work of the

redemption of fallen man. The devout Christian, to whom faith in the

God-man, CHRIST, the only Divine Mediator, opened the way to an intimate

union with GOD, saw by this doctrine that his Redeemer and Mediator was

as infinitely removed from the essence of GOD as himself; he saw himself

driven back to the ancient pagan estrangement from GOD, and removed to

an unattainable distance from him.—See _Maimbourg, Hist. of Arians. For

an account of the revival of Arianism in the last century_, see _Van

Mildert’s Life of Waterland_.

ARK OF THE COVENANT. So the Jews called a small chest or coffer, three

feet nine inches in length, two feet three inches in breadth, and two

feet three inches in height, (_Prideaux, Connect._ Part i. Book iii.,)

in which were contained “the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod,

and the tables of the covenant,” as well the broken ones (according to

the Rabbins) as the whole. Heb. ix. 4. Over the ark was the mercy-seat,

and it was the covering of it. It was made of solid gold (Exod. xxv.

17–22); and at the two ends of it were two cherubims looking inward

toward each other, with expanded wings, which, embracing the whole

circumference of the mercy-seat, met on each side in the middle. The

whole (according to the Rabbins) was made out of the same mass, without

joining any of the parts by solder. Here it was that the _Shechinah_, or

Divine presence, rested, both in the tabernacle and in the temple, and

was visibly seen in the appearance of a cloud over it. And from hence

the Divine oracles were given out, by an audible voice, as often as GOD

was consulted in the behalf of his people. And hence it is, that GOD is

said, in Scripture, to dwell between the cherubims, on the mercy-seat,

because there was the seat or throne of the visible appearance of his

glory among them. And for this reason the high priest appeared before

this mercy-seat once every year, on the great day of expiation; at which

time he was to make his nearest approach to the Divine presence, to

mediate, and make atonement for the whole people of Israel.—_R. Levi,

Ben. Gersom, Solomon, &c._ Lev. xvi. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 6; 2

Kings xix. 15; 1 Chron. xiii. 6; Psal. lxxx. 1; Lev. xvi. 14, 15; Heb.

ix. 7.

The ark of the covenant was, as it were, the centre of worship to all

those of that nation, who served GOD according to the Levitical law; and

not only in the temple, when they came thither to worship, but

everywhere else, in their dispersion throughout the whole world,

whenever they prayed, they turned their faces towards the place where

the ark stood, and directed all their devotions that way. Whence the

author of the book of Cosri justly says, that the ark, with the

mercy-seat, and cherubims, were the foundation, root, heart, and marrow,

of the whole temple, and all the Levitical worship therein performed.

And therefore had there been nothing else wanting in the second temple,

but the ark only, this alone would have been reason enough for the old

men to have wept, when they remembered the first temple, in which it

stood; and for the saying of Haggai, that the second temple was as

nothing in comparison of the first; so great a share had the ark of the

covenant in the glory of Solomon’s temple. However, the defect was

supplied as to the outward form: for, in the second temple, there was

also an ark, of the same shape and dimensions with the first, and put in

the same place: but it wanted the tables of the law, Aaron’s rod, and

the pot of manna; nor was there any appearance of the Divine glory over

it, nor any oracles delivered from it. The only use that was made of it

was, to be a representative of the former on the great day of expiation,

and to be a repository of the Holy Scriptures; that is, of the original

copy of that collection of them made by Ezra, after the captivity. In

imitation of which, the Jews, in all their synagogues, have a like ark,

or coffer, in which they keep their Scriptures. 1 Kings viii.

48.—_Lightfoot, of the Temple_, ch. xv. § 4.

The place of the temple where the ark stood, was the innermost and most

sacred part, called the _Holy of Holies_, and sometimes _the most holy

place_; which was made on purpose for its reception. This place, or

room, was of an exact cubic form, being thirty feet square, and thirty

feet high. In the centre of it, the ark was placed upon a stone (say the

Rabbins) rising three fingers’ breadth above the floor. On the two sides

of it stood two cherubims, fifteen feet high, at equal distance between

the centre of the ark and each side of the wall; where, having their

wings expanded, with two of them they touched the side walls, whilst the

other two met and touched each other exactly over the middle of the

ark.—_Yoma_, cap. v. § 2.

The ark, while it was ambulatory, with the tabernacle, was carried on

the shoulders of the Levites, by the means of staves, overlaid with

gold, and put through golden rings. Exod. xxv. 13, 14; xxvii. 6; Num.

iv. 4–6; 1 Chron. xv. 15.

What became of the old ark, on the destruction of the temple by

Nebuchadnezzar, is a dispute among the Rabbins. Had it been carried to

Babylon with the other vessels of the temple, it would have been brought

back again with them, at the end of the captivity. But that it was not

so, is agreed on all hands; whence it is probable it was destroyed with

the temple. The Jews contend, that it was hid and preserved by Jeremiah.

Some of them will have it, that King Josiah, being foretold by Huldah

the prophetess that the temple, soon after his death, would be

destroyed, caused the ark to be deposited in a vault, which Solomon,

foreseeing this destruction, had built on purpose for the preservation

of it.—_Buxtorf, de Arca_, cap. xxi., xxii.

ARMENIANS. The Christians of Armenia, the first country in which

Christianity was recognised as the national religion, in consequence of

the preaching of Gregory, called _The Illuminator_, in the beginning of

the fourth century. At a later time the Armenians adopted the Eutychian

or Monophysite heresy, asserting that the human nature of CHRIST is

swallowed up of the Divine; or is no more properly human than a drop of

vinegar put into the sea can afterwards be reckoned vinegar. They do not

deny the real presence in the eucharist, they do not mix water with

their wine, nor do they consecrate unleavened bread. They abstain from

eating blood and things strangled. They scrupulously observe fasting;

and fasts so frequently occur, that their whole religion seems to

consist in fasting. They admit infants to the sacrament of the

eucharist: they reject purgatory and prayers for the dead: they fast on

Christmas day, and they allow marriage in their priests. The Armenians

were anciently subject to the patriarchs of Constantinople, but they now

have their own patriarchs.

ARMINIANS. A powerful party of Christians, so called from Arminius,

professor of divinity at Leyden, who was the first that opposed the then

received doctrines in Holland, of an absolute predestination. They took

the name of Remonstrants, from a writing called a Remonstrance, which

was presented by them to the states of Holland, 1609, wherein they

reduced their peculiar doctrines to these five articles:—

1. That GOD, from all eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those

who, as he foresaw, would persevere unto the end in their faith in JESUS

CHRIST; and to inflict everlasting punishment on those who should

continue in their unbelief, and resist, to the end of life, his Divine

assistance; so that election was conditional; and reprobation, in like

manner, the result of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness.

2. On the second point, they taught, That JESUS CHRIST, by his suffering

and death, made an atonement for the sins of mankind in general, and of

every individual in particular; that, however, none but those who

believe in him can be partakers of that Divine benefit.

3. On the third article they held, That true faith cannot proceed from

the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force and

operation of free will; since man, in consequence of his natural

corruption, is incapable either of thinking or doing any good thing; and

that, therefore, it is necessary to his conversion and salvation, that

he be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the HOLY GHOST, which

is the gift of GOD, through JESUS CHRIST.

4. On the fourth they believed, That this Divine grace, or energy of the

HOLY GHOST, begins, advances, and perfects everything that can be called

_good_ in man; and that, consequently, all good works are to be

attributed to GOD alone; that nevertheless, this grace, which is offered

to all, does not force men to act against their inclinations, but may be

resisted and rendered ineffectual by the perverse will of the impenitent

sinner.

5. And on the fifth, That GOD gives to the truly faithful, who are

regenerated by his grace, the means of preserving themselves in this

state; and, though the first Arminians entertained some doubt with

respect to the closing part of this article, their followers uniformly

maintain, That the regenerate may lose true justifying faith, fall from

a state of grace, and die in their sins.

The synod of Dort, consisting of Dutch, French, German, and Swiss

divines, and held in 1618, condemned their opinions.

ARMS. Armorial bearings, whether borne by individuals or by corporate

bodies and corporations sole: among which are reckoned bishops,

colleges, and other ecclesiastical persons and bodies. A bishop empales

his family coat with the arms of his see, to denote his spiritual

marriage with his Church; but the arms of the see occupy the _dexter

side_ of the escutcheon, or _the side of greater honour_. When a bishop

is married, he empales the arms of his wife with his own family coat, on

a separate escutcheon; and this escutcheon is placed by the sinister

side of the shield, empaling his own coat with the arms of the see. Many

of the arms of bishoprics contain allusions to the spiritual character

of the person who bears them. Thus the archbishops of Canterbury,

Armagh, and Dublin, each bear a pall, in right of their sees; as did the

archbishop of York till his arms were changed about the beginning of the

sixteenth century to two keys crossed saltierwise, and a crown royal in

chief. Colleges often assume the family coat of their founder as their

arms.

ARTICLES, THE THIRTY-NINE. The Thirty-nine Articles, based on the

Forty-two Articles framed by Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridley in the

reign of Edward VI., were presented by his Grace the archbishop of

Canterbury, Dr. Parker, to the convocation of the province of Canterbury

which was convened with the parliament in January, 1562, and by the

convocation they were unanimously approved. In 1566 a bill was brought

into parliament to confirm them. The bill passed the Commons, but by the

queen’s command was dropped in the Lords. In 1571 the convocation

revised the articles of 1562, and made some alterations in them. In the

same year an act was passed, “to provide that the ministers of the

Church should be of sound religion.” It enacted that all ecclesiastical

persons should subscribe to “all the articles of religion which only

contained the confession of the true faith and of the sacraments,

comprised in a book imprinted, entitled ‘Articles,’ whereupon it was

agreed by the archbishops and bishops, and the whole clergy in

convocation holden at London, in the year of our LORD GOD 1562,

according to the computation of the Church of England, for the avoiding

of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching

true religion, put forth by the queen’s authority.” In 1628 an English

edition was published by royal authority, to which is prefixed the

declaration of Charles I. The English Articles were adopted by the Irish

convocation in 1615.

Some have thought that they are only articles of union and peace; that

they are a standard of doctrine, not to be contradicted or disputed;

that the sons of the Church are only bound to acquiesce silently in

them; and that the subscription binds only to a general compromise upon

those articles, that so there may be no disputing or wrangling about

them. By this means they reckon, that though a man should differ in his

opinion from that which appears to be the clear sense of any of the

articles; yet he may with a good conscience subscribe them, if the

article appears to him to be of such a nature, that though he thinks it

wrong, yet it seems not to be of that consequence, but that it may be

borne with and not contradicted.

Now as to the laity, and the whole body of the people, certainly to them

these are only the articles of Church communion: so that every person,

who does not think that there is some proposition in them that is

erroneous to so high a degree that he cannot hold communion with such as

hold it, may, and is obliged to, continue in our communion; for

certainly there may be many opinions held in matters of religion, which

a man may believe to be false, and yet may esteem them to be of so

little importance to the chief design of religion, that he may well hold

communion with those whom he thinks to be so mistaken.

But what the clergy are bound to by their subscriptions is much more

than this. The meaning of every subscription is to be taken from the

design of the imposer, and from the words of the subscription itself.

The title of the Articles bears, that they were agreed upon in

convocation, “for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the

establishing of consent touching true religion.” Where it is evident

that “a consent in opinion” is designed. If we in the next place

consider the declarations that the Church has made in the canons, we

shall find, that though by the fifth canon, which relates to the whole

body of people, such only are declared to be excommunicated _ipso

facto_, who shall affirm any of the articles to be erroneous, or such as

he may not with a good conscience subscribe to; yet the thirty-sixth

canon is express for the clergy, requiring them to subscribe “willingly

and _ex animo_,” and “acknowledge all and every article to be agreeable

to the word of GOD:” upon which canon it is, that the form of the

subscription runs in these words, which seem expressly to declare a

man’s own opinion, and not a bare assent to an article of peace, or an

engagement to silence and submission. The statute of the 13th of Queen

Elizabeth, chap. 12, which gives the legal authority to our requiring

subscriptions, in order to a man’s being capable of a benefice, requires

that every clergyman should read the Articles in the Church, with a

declaration of his unfeigned assent to them. These things make it appear

very plain, that the subscriptions of the clergy must be considered as a

declaration of their own opinion, and not as a bare obligation to

silence.—_Bishop Burnet._

We learn from the New Testament, that those who first embraced the

gospel declared their faith in JESUS, as the promised Messiah, in simple

and general terms (Acts viii. 37); and there is no ground for supposing

that the apostles required this declaration to be made in any one

particular form of words. No such formulary is transmitted to us; and,

had any ever existed, it would probably have been cited or alluded to in

the New Testament, or in the early apologies for Christianity. Every

bishop was authorized to prescribe a formulary for the use of his own

church; and there are still extant in writers who lived near to the

apostolic age, several abstracts of Christian faith, which, though they

agree in substance, vary in expression. But, when heresies gained

ground, and destroyed uniformity of belief among Christians, it became

necessary to have a public standard of faith; and to this cause we are

to attribute the origin of creeds. The design of these creeds was to

establish the genuine doctrines of the gospel, in opposition to the

errors which then prevailed; and to exclude from communion with the

orthodox Church of CHRIST all who held heretical opinions. New

dissensions and controversies continually arose; and we have to lament

that, in process of time, “the faith, which was once delivered unto the

saints,” became corrupted in the highest degree; and that those very

councils, which were convened according to the practice of the apostolic

age, for the purpose of declaring “the truth as it is in JESUS,” gave

their sanction and authority to the grossest absurdities and most

palpable errors. These corruptions, supported by secular power, and

favoured by the darkness and ignorance of the times, were almost

universally received through a succession of many ages, till at last the

glorious light of the Reformation dispelled the clouds which had so long

obscured the Christian world.

At that interesting period the several Churches, which had separated

themselves from the Roman communion, found it expedient to publish

confessions of their faith; and, in conformity to this practice, Edward

the Sixth, the first Protestant king of England, caused to be published

by his royal authority forty-two “Articles, agreed upon by the bishops

and other learned and good men, in the convocation held at London in the

year 1552, to root out the discord of opinions, and establish the

agreement of true religion.” These Articles were repealed by Queen Mary,

soon after her accession to the throne. But Queen Elizabeth, in the

beginning of her reign, gave her royal assent to thirty-nine [or rather

thirty-eight] “Articles, agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of

both provinces, and the whole clergy, in the convocation holden at

London in the year 1562, for avoiding diversities of opinion, and for

the establishing of consent touching true religion.” These Articles were

revised, and some small alterations made in them, in the year 1571;

since which time they have continued to be the criterion of the faith of

the members of the Church of England on the subjects to which they

relate. The Articles of 1562 were drawn up in Latin only [in reality the

Articles both of 1552 and of 1562 were set forth in our authorized

English version, as well as in Latin]; but, in 1571, they were

subscribed by the members of the two houses of convocation, both in

Latin and English; and, therefore, the Latin and English copies are to

be considered as equally authentic. The original manuscripts, subscribed

by the Houses of Convocation, were burnt in the Fire of London; but Dr.

Bennet has collated the oldest copies now extant, and it appears that

there are no variations of any importance.

It is generally believed that Cranmer and Ridley were chiefly concerned

in framing the forty-two Articles, upon which our thirty-nine are

founded. But Bishop Burnet says, that “questions relating to them were

given about to many bishops and divines, who gave in their several

answers, which were collated and examined very maturely; all sides had a

free and fair hearing before conclusions were made.” Indeed, caution and

moderation are no less conspicuous in them than a thorough knowledge of

the Scriptures, and of the early opinions and practice of Christians.

These Thirty-nine Articles are arranged with great judgment and

perspicuity, and may be considered under four general divisions: the

first five contain the Christian doctrines concerning the Father, the

Son, and the Holy Ghost; in the sixth, seventh, and eighth, the rule of

faith is established; the ten next relate to Christians, as individuals;

and the remaining twenty-one relate to them, as they are members of a

religious society. But, as all confessions of faith have had a reference

to existing heresies, we shall here find, not only the positive

doctrines of the gospel asserted; but also the principal errors and

corruptions of the Church of Rome, and most of the extravagances into

which certain Protestant sects fell at the time of the Reformation,

rejected and condemned.—_Bp. Tomline._

The various forms through which the Articles have passed, may be seen in

_Cardwell’s Synodalia_, and in _Hardwick’s History of the Articles_. In

1615, a set of Articles of a Calvinistic nature were compiled by the

Irish convocation; but it does not appear that they ever received the

sanction of parliament. These, however, were superseded in 1635 by the

English Articles, which were then adopted by the Irish Convocation. (See

Introduction to _Stephens’ Book of Common Prayer_, from the Dublin MS.,

vol. i., xxxvii.–xxxix.) The old Articles are given at length. In

general, these perfectly agree with the English Articles; but the

doctrines of the Lambeth Articles are introduced.

ARTS. One of the faculties in which degrees are conferred in the

universities. In the English and Irish universities there are two

degrees in arts, that of Bachelor and that of Master. The whole circle

of the arts was formerly reduced to seven sciences, grammar, rhetoric,

logic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy; and these again were

divided into the _trivium_, including the first three, and the

_quadrivium_, including the remaining four. Music is now considered as a

separate faculty at Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin; as the degrees of

Doctor and Bachelor of Music are given. Grammar was a separate but

subordinate faculty at Oxford and Cambridge, in which there were three

degrees, Doctor, Master, and Bachelor. There is an instance in Wood’s

Athenæ Oxon., of a _Doctor_ in Grammar and Rhetoric (Robt. Whityndon,

1513). The last record of grammatical degrees at Oxford is in 1568; at

Cambridge in 1539. The faculty of arts is called that of philosophy in

some foreign and more modern universities, there the degrees are Doctor

and Candidate.

ASAPH, _Psalms of_. One of the three Temple Choirs bore the designation

of the _Sons of Asaph_: from Asaph, their leader, in the time of David.

They were descendants of Gershom, the eldest son of Levi. Twelve Psalms

are entitled Psalms of Asaph: viz. the 50th, 73rd, 74th, 75th, 76th,

77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 82nd, and 83rd. Critics are divided in

opinion, as to whether these were composed or adopted by the above-named

Asaph, or by one of the same name, but of later date, or were

appropriated to the peculiar use of the _Sons of Asaph_, in the courses

of attendance at the temple.

ASCENSION DAY. This holy day has been kept in the Christian Church from

the earliest times. It is reckoned by the compiler of the Apostolic

Constitutions among the other great festivals, Christmas day, the

Epiphany, Easter, and Whitsunday; and St. Augustine speaks of it as

either instituted by the apostles, or by some early and numerously

attended councils of the primitive bishops, whose authority he

considered most beneficial in the Church. “On this day,” says St.

Chrysostom, “the reconciliation between GOD and mankind was completed,

the long enmity was dissolved, the blasting war brought to an end.” “On

this day, we, who had been shown to be unworthy of earth, were raised to

the hope of heaven; we, who were not fit to receive dominion even on

earth below, were exalted to the kingdom which is above; and our nature,

kept out by cherubim from an earthly paradise, may now sit above the

cherubim on high.” CHRIST, the first-fruits of our nature, having

obtained this perfection, we that are his members may hope to partake

the same glory. This hope the returning day of his ascension should ever

bring into our minds, and we should keep it for the sustaining of our

hope, and in thankfulness for the grace it brought. It is one of the

days which the Church especially recommends for the receiving of the

holy communion. (See _the_ _Special Preface in the Communion Office_.)

It is difficult to account for the too prevalent neglect of this high

festival of our Church, on any other ground than the encroachment of

worldly principles upon the minds of men, to the displacing of the

principles of the Church. Ascension day is one of the six holy days for

which special psalms are appointed. The three Rogation days are

appointed to prepare us for its right celebration, and yet, because it

is not marked by worldly festivities, many neglect and pass it by. It is

observed as a scarlet day at Oxford and Cambridge. It is popularly

called Holy Thursday. By 27 Henry VI. cap. 5, the holding of fairs or

markets was prohibited on _Ascension day_, as well as on other high

holidays, and on Sundays, &c.; making an exception however of the four

Sundays in harvest: and it was enacted that the fair should be held on

some other day preceding or following. That part of the act which

related to Sundays in harvest was repealed by 13 and 14 Vict. cap. 23.

The rest of the act remains unrepealed.

ASCETICS. Men in the second century, who made profession of uncommon

degrees of sanctity and virtue, and declared their resolution of obeying

all the counsels of CHRIST, in order to their enjoying communion with

GOD here; and also, in expectation that, after the dissolution of their

mortal bodies, they might ascend to him with the greater facility, and

find nothing to retard their approach to the supreme centre of happiness

and perfection. They looked upon themselves as prohibited the use of

things which it was lawful for other Christians to enjoy, such as

_wine_, _flesh_, _matrimony_, and _commerce_. They thought it their

indispensable duty to attenuate the body by watchings, abstinence,

labour, and hunger. They looked for felicity in solitary retreats, in

desert places, where, by severe and assiduous efforts of sublime

meditation, they thought to raise their souls above all external objects

and all sensual pleasures. Both men and women imposed upon themselves

the most severe tasks, the most austere discipline; all which, however

it might be the fruit of pious intention, was in the issue extremely

detrimental to Christianity, and tended to introduce the doctrine of

justification by inherent righteousness. These persons were called

_ascetics_ (from ἀσκησις, exercise or discipline) and _philosophers_;

nor were they only distinguished by their title from other Christians,

but also by their garb. In the second century, indeed, such as embraced

this austere kind of life submitted themselves to all these

mortifications in private, without breaking asunder their social bonds,

or withdrawing themselves from the concourse of men. But in process of

time, they retired into deserts; and, after the example of the Essenes

and Therapeutæ, they formed themselves into certain companies.—See

_Origen, contr. Cels._ lib. v.; _Can. Apostol._ cap. 51; _Cyril,

Catech._ 10, n. 9; _Bingham, Antiq. Chr. Ch._

ASCETICISM. The practice of the Ascetics. We do not consider neglect of

the body—meaning by the term our present material organization—a rule of

Christianity. The abnegation of sin is, of course, the root of all

religion, and the body of sin is a scriptural phrase for our nature in

its unredeemed and antagonistic state; but it ceases to be a body of

sin, in this sense, when it becomes a member of CHRIST: it becomes in

baptism a temple of the HOLY GHOST. But how are we to judge that the

spirit within is indeed regenerated? Principally by the works of the

body. The existence of good works manifests the operation of the spirit

of good, and the Christian character therefore takes for its physical

development—labour, activity, perseverance, energy, fortitude, courage;

to all of which qualities self-denial is the preliminary. Christianity,

therefore, does not eradicate the powers of the body any more than it

does the feelings of the heart, or the faculties of the mind; it

eradicates their misdevotion. What it aims at effecting is, to assign to

each in its sanctified character its proper place and province. It

defines legitimate objects for the passions, legitimate ambitions for

the mind, legitimate aspirations for the soul. Simply, Christianity is

human nature in rectitude, not lethargy, of action. Nature in every

instance tells us that we possess such and such powers; the gospel

directs their application, and reveals the important results dependent

on their use or abuse. The right discipline, therefore, not the

destruction, of human capabilities, is inculcated by the Scriptures. GOD

has for the wisest reasons placed the extirpation of these internal

organs of action beyond our power, but within our power the regulating

them for good or evil, happiness or misery. The choice is ours; the

consequences attendant on the choice are not ours: these have been fixed

from, and will extend into, eternity.—_Morgan._

ASCODRUTES, or ASCODROUTES. An heretical sect of the Marcosians. They

rejected the sacraments, alleging that things spiritual cannot be

conveyed in corporeal symbols.—_Bingham, Antiq. Chr. Ch._

ASHES. Several religious ceremonies depend upon the use of _ashes_. St.

Jerome relates, that the Jews, in his time, rolled themselves in ashes,

as a sign of mourning. To _repent in sackcloth and ashes_ is a frequent

expression in Scripture, for mourning and being afflicted for our sins.

Numb. xix. 17. There was a sort of lustral water, made with the ashes of

an heifer, sacrificed on the great day of atonement, the ashes whereof

were distributed among the people. In the Romish Church, ashes are given

among the people on Ash-Wednesday: they must be made from branches of

olive, or some other trees, that have been blessed the foregoing year.

(_Pescara Cerem. Eccles. Rom._) The sacristan, or vestry-keeper,

prepares these ashes, and lays them in a small vessel on the altar:

after which the officiating priest blesses the ashes, which are strewed

by the deacons, and assistants, on the heads of all that are present,

accompanied with these words, _Memento, homo, quod pulvis es_, &c.;

_Remember, man, that thou art dust_, &c.—_Religious Ceremonies of all

Nations_, vol. iii. (See _Ash-Wednesday_.)

ASH-WEDNESDAY. (See _Lent_ and _Commination_.) This day seems to have

been observed as the first day of Lent in the time of Gregory the Great.

It is supposed by some, that Gregory added three days at the beginning

of Lent, to make the number forty, in more exact imitation of the number

of days in our blessed SAVIOUR’S fast; and that before his time there

were only thirty-six days, the Sundays being always kept as festivals.

It was called, in his time, _Dies cinerum_, the day of sprinkling ashes,

or _Caput jejunii_, the beginning of the fast. The custom of open

penance, which the name of the day reminds us of, is one of those things

which the Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, wished to

see restored; but on account of the prejudices of the time, she could

not carry out her wishes. (See _the_ _Commination Service in the Prayer

Book_.)

ASPERGILLUM. An instrument resembling a brush, used in the Roman

Catholic Church for the purpose of sprinkling holy water over objects to

be blessed.

ASPERSION. (See _Affusion_.) The sprinkling with water in the sacrament

of baptism. This our rubric permits.

_Then the priest shall take the child into his hands, and say to the

godfathers and godmothers_,

Name this child.

_And then naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the

child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the water discreetly

and warily, saying_,

_N._ I baptize thee in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of

the HOLY GHOST. Amen.

_But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour

water upon it, saying the aforesaid words._

_N._ I baptize thee in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of

the HOLY GHOST. Amen.

It is said by the Anabaptists that there is no authority in Scripture

for thus administering the sacrament of baptism. But we find in the

primitive Church, that although baptism was regularly administered by

immersion, yet in cases of sickness, where clinic baptism was

administered, aspersion was used. We conclude, then, that immersion is

not essential to the sacrament; and if sickness were an excuse for not

immersing under certain circumstances, it is still a sufficient excuse,

if in our cold climate to immerse our children would be attended with

danger.—See _Bingham’s Origines Ecclesiasticæ_.

ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES. The title given to a notable assembly held at

Westminster, 1st July, 1643, convoked by an ordinance of the Lords and

Commons, but forbidden to be held by the king, to take the liturgy,

government, and doctrines of the Church under consideration. The members

were elected by the knights and burgesses, two being returned for each

county. According to Clarendon, they were most of them men of mean

learning, and some of them of scandalous morals. Among the exceptions to

this condemnatory sentence were Lightfoot and Selden. Usher was

nominated, but with the few Episcopalians elected did not serve. The

Scottish covenant was taken by this assembly: the confession of faith

still received in the Scottish Presbyterian establishment, and the

larger and shorter catechisms, were drawn up. But the opinions of the

members differed so widely on many points, that the assembly broke up

without accomplishing the principal end for which it was convened. (See

_Confessions of Faith_.)

ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. A festival of the Romish Church,

instituted in the seventh century, and fixed to the 15th of August, in

honour of the imaginary ascension of the Virgin Mary into heaven, which,

without any authority from Scripture or tradition, some sects in that

corrupt Church teach to have occurred in a miraculous manner, some years

after her death. Such is the corrupt practice of the Romanists, that in

many places higher honour is paid to this legendary festival than even

to the anniversary of the crucifixion of our Lord. (See _Virgin Mary_.)

ASYLUM. A place of refuge. This began to be a privilege of churches in

the time of Constantine. No persons could be arrested in churches. In

the middle ages this was a great advantage, to prevent the excesses of

private revenge. In times of great civilization it became an abuse, and

the privilege was taken away. (See _Sanctuary_.)

ATHANASIAN CREED. The learned, at this day, however they may differ in

their opinions about the age, or author, make no question but that the

composition was originally in Latin. The style and phraseology—its early

acceptance with the Latins, while unknown to the Greeks—the antiquity

and number of the Latin MSS., and their general agreement with each

other, compared with the lateness, the scarceness, and the disagreement

of the Greek copies—all seem to demonstrate this.

As to the antiquity of the Athanasian Creed, it was certainly become so

famous in the sixth century as to be commented upon, together with the

LORD’S Prayer and Apostles’ Creed, about the year 570, by Venantius

Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers, in France. This is certain evidence for

the time specified, and presumptive for much greater antiquity. For who

can imagine that it should grow into such repute of a sudden?

From the doctrines contained in the Creed, and from its manner of

expressing them, it is probable that it is earlier than the times of

Nestorius, or the Ephesine council, in 431; the Creed not condemning the

heresy of the Nestorians in such full, direct, critical terms as the

Catholics found to be necessary against the wiles and subtleties of

those men.

From the doctrine of the incarnation, as expressed therein, we may be

confident that it is not earlier than the rise of the Apollinarian

heresy, which appeared at first about the year 360, and grew to a head

about 370, or a little later. And this consideration is against the

opinion that Athanasius made it, either during his banishment at Treves,

which ended in the year 338, or during his stay at Rome, in the year

343; or that he presented it to either Pope Julius, or Liberius, who

were both dead before the year 367. And Dr. Waterland, whose researches

were so extensive, infers that the Athanasian Creed is not earlier than

the year 420.

It is observable that, about the year 426, St. Augustine, then bishop of

Hippo, in Africa, held a close and intimate correspondence with the

Gallican Churches. For one Leporius, a presbyter, having spread false

doctrine in Gaul, chiefly relating to the incarnation, and being

censured for it, fled to Africa, and was there brought to a sense of his

errors by St. Augustine and some other African bishops. The lives and

characters suiting extremely well with place, time, occasion, and other

circumstances, all these concur to persuade that the Creed was composed

in Gaul, between the years 426 and 430. And as Honoratus of Marseilles

tells us that Hilary, archbishop of Arles, from 429, composed an

admirable “Exposition of the Creed,” and as among the ancient titles

given to this Creed are, “An Exposition of the Catholic Faith,” or, yet

nearer, “An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed,” Hilary was probably the

author of this work: or else his Creed is lost.

As to the name of Athanasius, now generally prefixed to it, it may be

remarked, that upon the revival of the Arian controversy in Gaul, under

the influence of the Burgundian kings, it was natural to call one side

Athanasians, and the other side Arians; and so also to name the orthodox

faith the Athanasian faith, as the other, the Arian. This Creed,

therefore, being an excellent summary of the Catholic faith, as

maintained by Athanasius, might in process of time acquire the name of

the Athanasian faith, and so in a little while occasion the mistake of

ascribing it to him as his composition.

His name, together with the intrinsic worth and value of the form

itself, gave it credit enough to be received in France as an orthodox

formulary, or system of belief, about the middle of the sixth century,

and into the public offices of the Gallican Church about the year 670.

In Spain it was known and approved as a rule of faith about the year

633, and was soon after taken into the offices of the Church in that

kingdom. In Germany it was received at lowest about 787. As to our own

country, we have proof of the Creed’s being sung alternately in our

churches in the tenth century, when Abbo of Fleury, an ear-witness of

it, was here; and when the Saxon versions, still extant, were of

standing use, for the instruction and benefit both of clergy and people.

These evidences alone will prove the reception of this Creed in England

to have been as early as 950, or 930, or the time of Athelstan, whose

Latin Psalter has the Creed in it. But other circumstances make it

probable it was used as early as 880. About fourscore years after this,

it was received in Italy. And in Rome itself (which was always more

desirous of imposing her own offices upon other churches, than of

receiving any from them) it was received in the tenth century, and

probably about the year 930. From which time forwards this Creed has

been publicly recited in the Church offices all over the West; and it

seems in some parts of the Greek Church also.—_Waterland’s Critical

History of the Athanasian Creed_, &c.

Its reception has been both general and ancient. It has been received by

Greeks and Latins all over Europe; and if it has been little known among

the African and Asian Churches, the like may be said of the Apostles’

Creed, which has not been admitted, scarce known, in Africa, and but

little in Asia, except among the Armenians, who are said to receive it.

So that, for generality of reception, the Athanasian Creed may vie with

any, except the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan, the only general Creed

common to all the Churches.

As to the antiquity of its reception into the sacred offices, it was

received in several countries, France, Germany, England, Italy, and Rome

itself, as soon as the Nicene, or sooner; which is a high commendation

of it, as gaining ground by its own intrinsic worth, and without the

authority of any general council to enforce it. And there is this

further to be observed, that while the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds were

growing up to their present perfection, in a course of years, or

centuries of years, and not completed till about the year 600, this

Creed was made and perfected at once, and is more ancient, if considered

as an entire form, than either of the others, having received its full

perfection while the others wanted theirs.—_Waterland._

In the Greek and Roman Churches it survived in the midst of all the

corruptions that arose: upon the Reformation there was not a Protestant

Church but what received it in its fullest extent: Luther, Calvin, Beza,

and all the wisest and best reformers, acknowledged the Athanasian

Creed, and made it their profession of faith: the Puritans, in our own

country, the parent stock of all our modern dissenters, embraced it as

readily as the Church of England herself.—_Dean Vincent._

This admirable summary of the Christian faith, as to the great doctrines

of the Trinity and the incarnation, has met with the esteem it deserves

among all that have at heart the welfare of Christianity. The faith into

which Christians are baptized is this,—there is but one GOD, yet there

are three persons,—the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT, who are

equally Divine, and must be together the one GOD, since GOD is but one.

This is the faith which has been received in the Christian Churches from

the beginning; and this faith, I doubt not, will continue universally to

prevail, till all the chosen people are gathered in, and united in one

general assembly and church, in the pure realms of blessedness above. In

that happy country, the noise of controversies will cease. All who are

brought to stand in the presence of GOD, dressed in the unblemished

robes of innocence and immortality, will know, that all the three Divine

persons were concerned in bringing them thither; and as they owe their

happiness to the sacred three, they will join in directing the same

songs of praise to GOD, the Father of mercies, who chose them to himself

before the foundation of the world; to GOD the Son, who redeemed them

from wrath, by shedding his own precious blood; and to GOD the Holy

Spirit, who renewed and sanctified them, and conducted them safe through

the wilderness of this world, into the land of uprightness, the country

of rest and pure delight.—_Taylor on the Trinity._

On the clauses called damnatory, we may offer the following observations

from several of our standard writers. “He that believeth and is baptized

shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark xvi.

16.) These are the words of him who is ordained of GOD to be the judge

of quick and dead; of him who himself shall pronounce the final doom of

all men; spoken by him at the time when he was taking his solemn leave

of his apostles, giving them his last and final charge, and in which the

fate of all the world is determined. The meek and humble JESUS makes use

of very sharp expressions, when he warns his disciples against those who

should oppose or dispute those truths: “Beware (saith he) of false

prophets;” beware of false teachers, such as corrupt sound doctrine in

the essential and fundamental articles of faith.—_Wheatly._

Many unbelievers, and some Christians, suppose opinions to be

involuntary, and therefore harmless. But let them consider how far this

will carry them. Nothing is more expressly revealed in Holy Scripture,

than that he who does not believe the Christian religion shall be

condemned. If it be said, that unbelief may arise from a disorder or

from a defect in the understanding, every such case is, by implication,

excepted. This sentence is deemed by us declaratory of the general will

of GOD, and does not imply an absolute exclusion of every culpable

individual from his mercy.—_Croft._

The denial of our LORD’S Divinity, as it stands condemned by the laws

both of our Church and State, so it has, from the very beginning, been

esteemed a “damnable heresy;” and all impugners of it have been always

excluded from the communion of the Church. Primitive writers call it an

“abominable heresy,” “a God-denying apostasy,” and, in those ages, those

who broached such doctrines were constantly deposed and

excommunicated.—_Randolph on the Trinity._

One sometimes finds in persons a wonderful inattention and a strange

indifference with regard to the first and most fundamental doctrines of

their religion. It might possibly be with some view to this kind of

conduct, that the compiler of the Creed inserted what are called the

damnatory clauses. He was desirous to excite their attention, and to

rouse them from this unmeaning slumber; to convince them that something

is to be believed, as well as practised; and that in matters of this

importance men should not trifle with GOD and their own consciences, and

halt between two opinions.—HORBERY.

These clauses have occasioned much needless uneasiness. When such men, I

say not as Chillingworth, for we have judged him weak in religious

reasoning, but as Clarke, Tillotson, Secker, could be uneasy under them,

I can ascribe it to nothing but the influence of religious terror; a

sentiment which operates in all possible degrees; which makes us scruple

to admit in religion what would occasion no difficulty in common

affairs, lest our acquiescence should be owing to some corrupt or

indirect motive. Scruples of this kind are owing to not freely admitting

those limitations which common sense suggests in the application of

every general proposition. Heresies are very numerous; defiling the

purity of the faith, making men act on wrong principles, affording

handles to infidelity, and dividing Christians amongst themselves, so as

to defeat the ends of religious society, and probably lose some degree

of future happiness; it seems needful, therefore, to draw the erroneous

notions, which are so pernicious, into a small compass, and solemnly

reject them; that the unwary may be cautioned, and the bold and busy

innovator discouraged. And lest the unstable, who are tossed about with

every wind of doctrine, should continue to indulge their childish

fondness for novelty, and live on without any regular and permanent

principles, it seems also needful to remind them of the last solemn

declaration of our blessed LORD, not surely with a view to bias the

judgment, but only to enforce the duty of a sober and serious attention

to sacred truth, uninfluenced by passion or caprice.—_Hey’s Lectures._

These clauses were inserted in this Creed, and in most of the ancient

Creeds, the Arian as well as others, by no means to intimate the

condemnation, for want of faith, of such as had no opportunity of

receiving the Christian religion; but of such only as, having it duly

preached to them, should receive it in an evil heart of unbelief, and,

holding it in unrighteousness, should mutilate or corrupt its

essentials. There is, surely, a wide difference between condemning with

severity, and believing with sorrow and compassion that another is

condemned. A man who pronounces this sentence, because he sees it

pronounced in the word of GOD, might die for the conversion and

retrieval of those on whom he is forced, by the conviction of his faith,

to pronounce it.—_Skelton._

Damnatory clauses, or anathemas, as they are angrily called, deriving

their authority from Scripture, should be considered as awful

admonitions, which it hath seemed good to Divine wisdom to announce

generally, in order to condemn an indifference of mind in matters of

religious principle; to correct a fond admiration of change or novelty;

and to intimidate, under the severest penalties of GOD’S displeasure,

the vain or interested from broaching their wild and pernicious

heresies.—_Bishop Cleaver._

Many have argued against the use of this Creed; and some, with strange

vehemence, partly from the doctrines which it teaches, but chiefly from

the condemnation which it pronounces on all who disbelieve them. Now the

doctrines are undeniably the same with those that are contained in the

Articles of our Church, in the beginning of our litany, in the

conclusions of many of our collects, in the Nicene Creed, and, as we

conceive, in that of the Apostles; in the doxology, in the form of

baptism, and in numerous passages of both Testaments; only here they are

somewhat more distinctly set forth, to prevent equivocation.—_Archbishop

Secker._

Whenever we go contrary to a stream, which has run in one channel for

seventeen centuries, we ought to doubt our own opinions, and at least

treat the general and concurring testimony of mankind with respect. If

any one has his doubts on the intricacies of this question, let him

first search the Scripture, and settle his principles from thence; if he

afterwards wishes to pursue his researches, let him not recur to the

crude and hasty publications of the present day, in which assertions are

rashly made, without foundation in Scripture, antiquity, or the

principles of any Church, but to those learned writers who managed this

controversy fifty years ago in our own country; or, if he has learning

and leisure sufficient, to the primitive fathers themselves.—_Dean

Vincent._

Whoever wrote this Creed, he meant nothing more than to collect things

said in various Catholic writers, against the various heresies

subsisting, and to simplify and arrange the expressions, so as to form a

confession of faith the most concise, orderly, and comprehensive,

possible. Not with any view of explaining any mysterious truths, but

with the sole design of rejecting hurtful or heretical errors. And it

may have been adopted on account of its excellence, in bringing the

errors which were to be shunned into a small compass, in exposing them

in a kind of poetic numbers, which strike and possess the ear; and may

have been called “Athanasian,” only on account of its containing

doctrines which have been defended with peculiar force and brilliancy by

the great prelate of Alexandria.—_Hey’s Lectures._

The Athanasian Creed only tells us what we must believe, if we believe a

Trinity in unity, three persons and one GOD: and I challenge any man,

who sincerely professes this faith, to tell me, what he can leave out of

this exposition, without destroying the Divinity of some of the three

persons, or the unity of the Godhead. If each person must be God and

Lord, must not each person be uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal,

almighty? If there be but one God, and one Lord, can there be three

separated, uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty Gods; which

must of necessity be three Gods, and three Lords! This Creed does not

pretend to explain _how_ there are three persons, each of which is God,

and yet but one God, but only asserts the thing, that thus it is, and

thus it must be, if we believe a Trinity in unity; which should make all

men, who would be thought neither Arians nor Socinians, more cautious

how they express the least dislike of it.—_Sherlock on the Trinity._

Every Divine perfection and substantial attribute of Deity is common to

the three: what is peculiar applies only to their relations, order, or

office; paternity, filiation, procession—first, second, third

persons—creation, redemption, sanctification. The Athanasian Creed is

altogether illustrative of this economy; and if it be carefully

considered under this point of view, I am persuaded it will appear to be

exceedingly reasonable and judicious. There is something in the mere

sound of the clauses which I doubt not beguiles it of its just praise.

Some have forgotten, perhaps, and some have never known, its proper

history. The numerous sects whose different apprehensions of the precise

nature of the holy Trinity led men in those distant days into one, at

least, of the two great errors, either that of “confounding the persons”

or “dividing the substance,” are now perhaps no more. They may indeed

subsist under other names; but men have long since ceased to talk of the

Sabellians, Noëtians, Patripassians, Praxeans, Eunomians, Apollinarians,

Photinians, Cerinthians, and even Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians;

for these latter are the sects chiefly opposed in the Athanasian Creed.

But there is not one clause of this ancient formulary that is not

directed, in the simplest manner possible, against the different errors

of all these several sects; their wild and discordant notions are all

met by the constant reiteration of that one great truth, that though the

Christian verity compels us to acknowledge every person of the holy

Trinity to be God and Lord, yet the Catholic religion equally forbids us

to say there be three Gods, or three Lords; though, therefore, each is

uncreate, each eternal, each almighty, each God, and each Lord, yet

these attributes, as the exclusive attributes of Deity, are common to

the three; the omnipotence, the eternity, the Divinity, the power and

dominion, the glory and majesty, is one; “such as the FATHER is, such is

the SON, and such is the HOLY GHOST.”—_Nares on the Creeds._

Whilst the Apostles’ Creed compendiously sums up and declares the main

articles of our Christian faith, and the Nicene Creed explains more

fully the articles relating to the SON and the HOLY GHOST, the

Athanasian Creed stands as an excellent guard and defence against the

subtleties of most kinds of heretics, who, were it once removed, would

soon find means to enervate and evade the shorter Creeds, where the

Christian faith is more simply declared.—_Wheatly._

The intention of the Creed, as well as of our LORD in the Gospel, is

only to say, that whoever rejects the doctrine of it, from presumptuous

self-opinion, or wilful negligence, the case of such an one is

desperate. But though we pass judgment on his errors without reserve,

and, in general, on all who maintain them, yet personally and singly we

presume not to judge of his condition in the next world.—_Archbishop

Secker._

The use of it is, to be a standing fence and preservative against the

wiles and equivocations of most kinds of heretics. This was well

understood by Luther when he called it “a bulwark to the Apostles’

Creed;” much to the same purpose with what is cited of Ludolphus Saxo

(“tria sunt symbola; primum Apostolicum, secundum Nicenum, tertium

Athanasii; primum factum est ad fidei instructionem, secundum ad fidei

explanationem, tertium ad fidei defensionem”). And it was this and the

like considerations that have all along made it to be of such high

esteem among all the Reformed Churches, from the days of their great

leader.—_Waterland._

The Church of England proposes no Creeds to be believed upon their own

authority, but because they are agreeable to the word of GOD. The

articles of the Creed indeed are proposed as articles of faith. But they

are only collections of some important truths to which that testimony is

given. They are, at the highest, but extracts which are to be believed

because there contained; and so to be believed as there delivered.

Whatever doctrines are consonant to the Scriptures, she recommends to

our faith; but what are contrary to the word of GOD, she pronounces not

lawful for the Church to ordain. She expects her members to believe

nothing as of Divine revelation, but what the records of that revelation

plainly contain. Nor of the truths there discovered, does she impose the

belief of any as a necessary term of communion, but what she apprehends

the sacred oracles themselves to represent as a necessary term of

salvation. These were the creeds of the Western Church before the

Reformation; and because, at the Reformation, she withdrew from nothing

but what was corrupt, therefore, these being catholic and sound, she

still retains them.—_Wheatly._

Why, it is often said, are we so zealous in enforcing doctrines merely

speculative? The answer is, we believe them to be inculcated in

Scripture, essential to the Christian religion, and _not_ merely

speculative. The SON and the HOLY GHOST are each of them said to be sent

by the FATHER, each of them contributes to the great work of our

salvation. To refuse them Divine honour, is unquestionably to deny their

Divine power. We do not presume to fix limits to Divine mercy; but

surely we endanger our title to it, when we reject the conditions upon

which it is granted. The humble Christian hopes for no benefit from the

gospel covenant, but from a firm reliance on the merits of his SAVIOUR,

and the aid of the HOLY SPIRIT.—_Croft._

In the sacred Scripture there is no mention but of two sorts of men,

whereof some believe, so that they are saved; some believe not, and they

are damned. (Mark xvi. 16; John iii. 18.) But neither the Church, nor

the individual rehearsing the creed, is responsible for these

denunciations. It is a formulary which happens to express suitably and

well the exact opinions of the Church of England, in regard to the two

great mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation, as far as they can be

understood. True it is, indeed, that in her eighth Article she asserts,

that the three creeds, Nicene, Athanasian, and that which is commonly

called the Apostles’ Creed, “ought thoroughly to be received and

believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy

Scripture.” And has the Church of England no right to make this

declaration? Is she to be the only society of Christians that shall not

have permission to assert that her faith is the right faith? What

dissenter from the Church of England would hesitate to assume this

liberty? Who is there that scruples to speak thus exclusively of his own

mode of thinking? Can anything be more candidly or unexceptionably

stated, than her confidence that these creeds ought to be believed,

because they may be proved by warrants of holy writ? In saying this,

does she preclude any man from examination? Does she lock up the volume

of holy writ? She appeals solely to Scripture for the truth of her

doctrine, leaving all who oppose her to the mercies of GOD. She does not

presume to say with those, whose cause has lately been strangely

popular, and whose language in a sister kingdom is such to this day,

that whoever presumes to separate from her, “eo ipso illis nulla est

speranda salus!” She does not even venture to assert, with the

celebrated reformer Calvin, whose famous Institutes were written on the

model of the Apostles’ Creed, and who must, no doubt, have had a view,

in saying it, to his own peculiar Church, “extra ecclesiæ gremium,” &c.;

“out of the bosom of the Church there is no hope whatever of salvation,

or remission of sins.” We may surely be permitted to admire that strange

course of things, and confusion of circumstances, that have lately

conspired to render those popular whose principles are truly exclusive

and intolerant; and the Church in some respects unpopular, which is as

truly tolerant. Her language is constantly the same, and perfectly

apostolic: “Search the Scriptures.” “Prove all things; hold fast that

which is good.”—_Nares on the Creeds._

Let the gates of our communion be opened as wide as is consistent with

the gospel of _Christ_; yet surely those will stand excluded, who hold

errors expressly condemned in that gospel, and which that gospel was

particularly and purposely wrote to guard against.—_Randolph on the

Trinity._

The commissioners in 1688, thirty eminent divines, appointed to review

and correct the liturgy, close the rubric they had prepared in the

following words,—“And the condemning clauses (viz. in the Athanasian

Creed) are to be understood as relating only to those who obstinately

deny the substance of the Christian faith.”

It is no hard matter for witty men to put very perverse senses on

Scripture to favour their heretical doctrines, and to defend them with

such sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking men;

and the best way in this case is, to have recourse to the ancient faith

of the Christian Church, to learn from thence how these articles were

understood and professed by them; for we cannot but think, that those

who conversed with the apostles, and did not only receive the

Scriptures, but the sense and interpretation of them, from the apostles,

or apostolical men, understood the true Christian faith much better than

those at a farther remove; and therefore, as long as we can reasonably

suppose this tradition to be preserved in the Church, their authority is

very venerable.—_Sherlock on the Trinity._

These contentions were cause of much evil, yet some good the Church hath

reaped by them, in that they occasioned the learned and sound in faith

to explain such things as heresy went about to deprave. And in this

respect the Creed of Athanasius, concerning that truth which Arianism so

mightily did impugn, was both in the East and West Churches accepted as

a treasure of inestimable price, by as many as had not given up even the

very ghost of belief. That which heresy did by sinister interpretations

go about to pervert in the first and most ancient apostolical creed, the

same being by singular dexterity and plainness cleared from those

heretical corruptions, partly by this creed of Athanasius. These

catholic declarations of our belief, delivered by them who were so much

nearer than we are unto the first publication thereof, and continuing

needful for all men at all times to know, these confessions, as

testimonies of our continuance in the same faith to this present day, we

rather use than any other gloss or paraphrase devised by ourselves,

which, though it were to the same effect, notwithstanding could not be

of the like authority and credit.—_Hooker._

The doctrinal part of the creed has been called a “bulwark;” and if it

be maintained, it should be maintained as a fortification. In time of

peace, the inconvenience of keeping up fortifications occasions their

being sometimes neglected, but when war breaks out afresh, every one is

clamorous in blaming the imprudence of such neglect. If we are at peace

now with the powers which would attack us where our creed would be our

defence, we are always liable to be at war with them again. We have seen

how naturally all the heresies condemned in the creed arise, when men

once become eager in solving the difficulties of the Trinity and the

incarnation; and such eagerness might at any time arise, or any

revolution, or great disturbance, or confusion; and in case of renewed

attacks, our present creed would be a much better defence than any new

one that would be made at the time it was wanted.—_Hey’s Lectures._

What the consequence may be, should we part with our creed, may easily

be inferred from what followed upon the dropping a single word

(_consubstantial_, or, as expressed in our English creed, “being of one

substance with the FATHER”) out of the [Nicene] creed at the Council of

Ariminum. The Catholics, being deceived by the great and earnest

importunity of the Arians for unity and peace, were at last prevailed

upon. The word _consubstantial_ was left out; and the Arians boasted

over all the world, that the Nicene faith was condemned and Arianism

established in a general council. It is candour, when good Catholics are

divided about words, to bring them to a right understanding of one

another, which will set them at peace and unity again. But it is

tameness to give up the main bulwarks of the faith to fallacious

adversaries and designing men, whose arts and aims, however disguised,

are always known to strike at the foundation of religion.—_Bingham and

Wheatly._

To the sceptic, the Arian, and the Socinian, we do not expect to find

such a creed acceptable, because it was designed to restrain the

fantastic and pernicious opinions started on their part upon the

subjects contained in it. But every firm and steady believer may still,

and indeed ought to, hold high the value of the only creed delivered to

us from antiquity, which states that first and great principle of

Christian revelation, the importance and necessity of a just faith. Upon

us, the ministers of the Church, especially, it is incumbent, as

occasions offer, to explain and illustrate its design and uses to the

more unlearned, as well as to obviate the crude exceptions made against

its doctrines or language, to derive its due weight of authority from

the venerable antiquity of its origin, and to draw an argument of its

merits from the universal approbation with which it has been received.

Who would not tremble at the proposal of laying waste a fence, which in

any degree hath afforded protection to what was obtained for us at so

inestimable a price; and of inviting, by a voluntary surrender of our

present security, renewed instances of insult, in repeated and incessant

attacks to be made upon the terms and obligations of our Christian

covenant?—_Bp. Cleaver._

There are no kinds of heretics but hope to make the vulgar understand

their tenets respectively, and to draw them aside from the received

faith of the Church: and, therefore, it behoves the pastors of the

Church to have a standing form to guard the people against any such

attempts. The Christian Churches throughout the world, ever since the

multiplication of heresies, have thought it necessary to guard their

people by some such forms as these in standing use amongst them. And

they are not so much afraid of puzzling and perplexing the vulgar by

doing it, as they are of betraying and exposing them to the attempts of

seducers, should they not do it. The common people will be in no danger

of running either into Sabellianism, or tritheism, if they attend to the

Creed itself, (which fully obviates and confutes both those heresies,)

instead of listening to those who first industriously labour to deceive

them into a false construction of the Creed, and then complain of the

common people’s being too apt to misunderstand it.—_Waterland._

Those in authority should be very cautious how they give in to such

schemes as, under the plausible pretence of pruning our vine, and

reforming things in their own nature indifferent and alterable, would by

degrees overturn our whole establishment.—_Randolph on the Trinity._

We may, perhaps, be reminded, that some of our own most sanguine friends

have wished to expunge it. But one of them lived to retract his opinion,

and a friend of truth is not to be overawed by authority, however

respectable, nor silenced by popular clamour.—_Croft._

So long as there shall be any men left to oppose the doctrines which

this Creed contains, so long will it be expedient, and even necessary,

to continue the use of it, in order to preserve the rest; and, I

suppose, when we have none remaining to find fault with the doctrines,

there will be none to object against the use of the Creed, or so much as

to wish to have it laid aside.—_Waterland, Ath. Creed._

Whatever may be pretended, this is not a controversy about some

metaphysical abstract notions of personality, subsistence, or moral

distinctions in the Divine nature; in these there will be always room

left for different speculations and sentiments. It is not a controversy

about forms, but it is a controversy about the very object of religious

worship. Should there be a falling away from this profession, should

there be a denying of the LORD that bought us, or of the HOLY SPIRIT,

the Sanctifier and Comforter, disowning them to be truly and properly by

nature GOD, of the same essence and eternity as the FATHER, and with him

the one GOD, not three Gods, with too much reason it might be said, the

glory is departed from us, whether dissenters or of the Established

Church, that hath been counted the head and great support of the

Protestant Churches. Should we, or they, thus fall, those Protestants,

whose confessions we have mentioned, yea, and all Christians abroad,

must, upon their professed principles, renounce us as not holding the

head.—_London Ministers’ Cases, Trinity._

The Creed of Athanasius, and that sacred hymn of glory, than which

nothing doth sound more heavenly in the ears of faithful men, are now

reckoned as superfluities which we must in any case pare away, lest we

cloy GOD with too much service. Yet cause sufficient there is why both

should remain in use; the one as a most divine explication of the

chiefest articles of our Christian belief, the other as an heavenly

acclamation of joyful applause to his praises in whom we believe.

Neither the one nor the other unworthy to be heard sounding, as they

are, in the Church of CHRIST, whether Arianism live or die.—_Hooker._

For a detailed justification of the Athanasian Creed, see _Redcliffe on

the Athanasian Creed_.

It is appointed to be said in the Church of England on the great

festivals, and on certain holidays, in place of the Apostles’ Creed, at

Morning Prayer. So that it may be said once a month at least.—_Sparrow.

Wheatly._

This Creed is called in the Roman offices the Psalm, Quicunque vult, and

was printed for antiphonal chanting, as it is now recited in our choirs;

being alternated, like the Psalms between minister and people in parish

churches. The right notion that a creed is also a song of thanksgiving

is thus significantly cherished. It has been objected to the Church of

England, that she has disingenuously attributed this Creed to St.

Athanasius: whereas in fact she has not decided the question. It is

called indeed the _Creed of St. Athanasius_ in the rubric before the

Apostles’ Creed; but that is plainly an abbreviated term for the full

designation prefixed to the Creed itself, “this confession of our

Christian faith, _commonly called the Creed of Saint Athanasius_.” And

even the running heading does not so designate it. The words “the Creed

of _Saint Athanasius_,” was deliberately altered by the correctors of

the sealed books for “at Morning Prayer,” the present heading, in which,

as in all other corrections, the authentic copy was followed. See the

fac-simile of the corrected sealed books in Stephens’s Book of Common

Prayer with notes. The same remark may apply to the designation in the

8th Article, _Athanasius’s Creed_.

ATHEIST. (From ἀ and θέος, without GOD.) One who denies the being and

moral government of GOD. There have been but few atheists in the strict

sense of the word, under any system, and at any time. Some few perhaps

still remain, and adopt the system of Spinosa, which supposes the

universe to be one vast substance, impelled to all its movements by some

internal force, which operates by a blind and irresistible necessity.

The heathen, who vied with heretics in giving names of opprobrium to

true Christians, called the primitive Christians _Atheists_, because

they did not worship _their_ gods.

ATONEMENT. (See _Propitiation_, _Co__venant of Redemption_, _Sacrifice_,

and _Jesus Christ_.) The word atonement signifies the satisfying of

Divine justice, as mentioned in the Article on the Covenant of

Redemption. The etymology of the word conveys the idea of two parties,

previously at variance, being set _at one_ again, and hence

_at-one-ment_, from originally signifying _reconciliation_, comes, by a

natural metonymy, to denote that by which the reconciliation is

effected. The doctrine of the atonement is thus stated by the Church:

“The SON, which is the Word of the FATHER, begotten from everlasting of

the FATHER, the very and eternal GOD, and of one substance with the

FATHER, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her

substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the

Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be

divided, whereof is one CHRIST, very GOD and very Man; who truly

suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his FATHER to us,

and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual

sins of men.”—_Article 2._

That our blessed LORD suffered is sufficiently clear from Scripture, and

that it was not for himself, but for us, that this GOD-man lived so

sorrowfully, and died so painfully, the Scripture is full and clear: and

not only in general, that it was for our sakes he did it; but, in

particular, it was for the reconciling his FATHER to us, and to purchase

the pardon of our sins for us,—expressly telling us, that “he hath

reconciled both (Jew and Gentile) unto GOD, in one body, by the cross,

having slain the enmity thereby.” (Eph. ii. 16.) “Yea, when we were

enemies, we were reconciled to GOD by the death of his SON.” (Rom. v.

10.) “So that us, who were sometimes alienated, and enemies in our minds

by wicked works, now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh through

death, to present us holy, and unblameable, and unreproveable in his

sight.” (Col. i. 21, 22.) And the reason is, because “it pleased the

FATHER that in him should all fulness dwell;” and, “having made peace

through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to

himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in heaven or things in

earth.” (Verse 19, 20.) And this reconciliation of GOD to us, he made by

offering up himself a sacrifice for us. For “GOD sent his SON to be the

propitiation for our sins,” (1 John iv. 10,) “and he is the propitiation

for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole

world.” (Chap. ii. 2.) And therefore when we see him sweating great

drops of blood under the burden of sin, we must not think they were his

own sins that lay so heavy upon him: no, they were our sins, which he

had taken off from us and laid upon himself; for he bore our griefs, and

carried our sorrows; “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was

bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him,

and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah liii. 4, 5.) So undoubted a

truth is this comfortable assertion, that JESUS CHRIST by his death and

sufferings reconciled his FATHER to us, and therefore was a sacrifice,

not only for “original guilt,” but also for “actual sins of

men.”—_Beveridge._

ATTRITION. (See _Contrition_.) The casuists of the Church of Rome have

made a distinction between a perfect and an imperfect contrition. The

latter they call attrition, which is the lowest degree of repentance, or

a sorrow for sin arising from a sense of shame, or any temporal

inconvenience attending the commission of it, or merely from fear of the

punishment due to it, without any resolution to sin no more: in

consequence of which doctrine, they teach that, after a wicked and

flagitious course of life, a man may be reconciled to GOD, and his sins

forgiven, on his death-bed, by confessing them to the priest with this

imperfect degree of sorrow and repentance. This distinction was settled

by the Council of Trent. It might, however, be easily shown that the

mere sorrow for sin because of its consequences, and not on account of

its evil nature, is no more acceptable to GOD than hypocrisy itself can

be.—_Conc. Trident._ sess. xiv. cap. 4.

AUDIENCE, COURT OF. The Court of Audience, which belongs to the

archbishop of Canterbury, was for the disposal of such matters, whether

of voluntary or contentious litigation, as the archbishop thought fit to

reserve for his own hearing. This court was afterwards removed from the

archbishop’s palace, and the jurisdiction of it exercised by the

master-official of the audience, who held his court in the consistory

palace at St. Paul’s. But now the three offices of official-principal of

the archbishop, dean or judge of the peculiars, and official of the

audience, being united in the person of the dean of arches, its

jurisdiction belongs to him. The archbishop of York has likewise his

Court of Audience.

AUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN, CONFESSION. In 1530, a diet of the German

princes was convened by the emperor Charles V., to meet in that city,

for the express purpose of pacifying the religious troubles, by which

most parts of Germany were then distracted. “In his journey towards

Augsburgh,” says Dr. Robertson, “the emperor had many opportunities of

observing the dispositions of the Germans, in regard to the points in

controversy, and found their minds everywhere so much irritated and

inflamed, that nothing tending to severity or rigour ought to be

attempted, till the other methods proved ineffectual. His presence seems

to have communicated to all parties an universal spirit of moderation

and desire of peace. With such sentiments, the Protestant princes

employed Melancthon, the man of the greatest learning, as well as the

most pacific and gentlest spirit among the Reformers, to draw up a

confession of faith, expressed in terms as little offensive to the Roman

Catholics as a regard to truth would admit. Melancthon, who seldom

suffered the rancour of controversy to envenom his style, even in

writings purely polemical, executed a task, so agreeable to his natural

disposition, with moderation and success.”

The singular importance of this document of Protestant faith seems to

require, in this place, a particular mention of its contents. It

consists of twenty-one articles. In the first, the subscribers of it

acknowledge the unity of GOD and the trinity of persons; in the second,

original sin; in the third, the two natures and unity of person in JESUS

CHRIST, and all the other articles contained in the symbol of the

apostles, respecting the SON of GOD. They declare in the fourth, that

men are not justified before GOD by their works and merits, but by the

faith which they place in JESUS CHRIST, when they believe that GOD

forgives their sins out of love for his SON. In the fifth, that the

preaching of the gospel and the sacraments are the ordinary means used

by GOD to infuse the HOLY GHOST, who produces faith, whenever he wills,

in those that hear his word. In the sixth, that faith produces the good

works to which men are obliged by the commandments of GOD. In the

seventh, that there exists a perpetual Church, which is the assembly of

saints; and that the word of GOD is taught in it with purity, and the

sacraments administered in a legitimate manner; that the unity of this

Church consists in the uniformity of doctrine and sacraments; but that

an uniformity of ceremonies is not requisite. In the eighth, they

profess that the word of GOD and the sacraments have still their

efficacy, although administered by wicked clergymen. In the ninth, that

baptism is requisite for salvation, and that little children ought to be

baptized. In the tenth, that, in the sacrament of the last supper, both

the body and blood of the LORD are truly present, and distributed to

those who partake of it. In the eleventh, that confession must be

preserved in the Church, but without insisting on an exact enumeration

of sins. In the twelfth, that penance consists of contrition and faith,

or the persuasion, that, for the sake of JESUS CHRIST, our sins are

forgiven us on our repentance; and that there is no true repentance

without good works, which are its inseparable fruits. In the thirteenth,

that the sacraments are not only signs of the profession of the gospel,

but proofs of the love of GOD to men, which serve to excite and confirm

their faith. In the fourteenth, that a vocation is requisite for pastors

to teach in the Church. In the fifteenth, that those ceremonies ought to

be observed which keep order and peace in the Church; but that the

opinion of their being necessary to salvation, or that grace is

acquired, or satisfaction done for our sins, by them, must be entirely

exploded. In the sixteenth, that the authority of magistrates, their

commands and laws, with the legitimate wars in which they may be forced

to engage, are not contrary to the gospel. In the seventeenth, that

there will be a judgment, where all men will appear before the tribunal

of JESUS CHRIST; and that the wicked will suffer eternal torments. In

the eighteenth, that the powers of free-will may produce an exterior

good conduct, and regulate the morals of men towards society; but that,

without the grace of the HOLY GHOST, neither faith, regeneration, nor

true justice can be acquired. In the nineteenth, that GOD is not the

cause of sin, but that it arises only from the corrupt will of man. In

the twentieth, that good works are necessary and indispensable; but that

they cannot purchase the remission of sins, which is only obtained in

consideration of faith, which, when it is sincere, must produce good

works. In the twenty-first, that the virtues of the saints are to be

placed before the people, in order to excite imitation; but that the

Scripture nowhere commands their invocation, nor mentions anywhere any

other mediator than JESUS CHRIST. “This,” say the subscribers of the

Confession, “is the summary of the doctrine taught amongst us; and it

appears from the exposition which we have just made, that it contains

nothing contrary to Scripture; and that it agrees with that of the

Catholic Church, and even with the Roman Church, as far as is known to

us by their writers. This being so, those who wish that we should be

condemned as heretics are very unjust. If there be any dispute between

us, it is not upon articles of faith, but only upon abuses that have

been introduced into the Church, and which we reject. This, therefore,

is not a sufficient reason to authorize the bishops not to tolerate us,

since we are agreed in the tenets of faith which we have set forth:

there never has been an exact uniformity of exterior practice since the

beginning of the Church, and we preserve the greater part of the

established usages. It is therefore a calumny to say, that we have

abolished them all. But, as all the world complained of the abuses that

had crept into the Church, we have corrected those only which we could

not tolerate with a good conscience; and we entreat your Majesty to hear

what the abuses are which we have retrenched, and the reasons we had for

doing it. We also entreat, that our inveterate enemies, whose hatred and

calumnies are the principal cause of the evil, may not be believed.”

They then proceed to state the abuses in the Church of Rome, of which

they complain. The first is the denial of the cup in the sacrament of

the Lord’s supper; the second, the celibacy of the clergy; the third,

the form of the mass. On this head their language is very remarkable:

“Our Churches,” they say, “are unjustly accused of having abolished the

mass, since they celebrate it with great veneration: they even preserve

almost all the accustomed ceremonies, having only added a few German

hymns to the latter, in order that the people may profit by them.” But

they object to the multiplicity of masses, and to the payment of any

money to a priest for saying them. The fourth abuse of which they

complain, is the practice of auricular confession: but, they observe,

that they have only taken from it the penitent’s obligation to make to

the priest a particular enumeration of his sins, and that they had

retained the confession itself, and the obligation of receiving

absolution from the priest. The fifth abuse is the injunction of

abstinence from particular meats. Monastic vows they represent as the

sixth abuse. The seventh and last abuse of which they complain, is that

of ecclesiastical power. They say that “a view of the attempts of the

popes to excommunicate princes, and dispose of their states, led them to

examine and fix the distinction between the secular and ecclesiastical

power, to enable themselves to give to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar, and

to the popes and bishops what belongs to them.” That “ecclesiastical

power, or the power of the keys, which JESUS CHRIST gave to his Church,

consisted only of the power of preaching the gospel, of administering

the sacraments, the forgiveness of sins, and refusing absolution to a

false penitent: therefore,” say they, “neither popes nor bishops have

any power to dispose of kingdoms, to abrogate the laws of magistrates,

or to prescribe to them rules for their government;” and that, “if there

did exist bishops who had the power of the sword, they derived this

power from their quality of temporal sovereigns, and not from their

episcopal character, or from Divine right, but as a power conceded to

them by kings or emperors.”

It is not a little remarkable, that considerable differences, or various

readings, are to be found in the printed texts of this important

document, and that it is far from certain which copy should be

considered the authentic edition. The German copies printed in 1530, in

quarto and octavo, and the Latin edition printed in quarto in 1531, are

in request among bibliographical amateurs; but there is a verbal, and,

in some instances, a material, discrepancy among them. The Wittenberg

edition, of 1540, is particularly esteemed, and has been adopted by the

publishers of the “Sylloge Confessionum Diversarum,” printed in 1804, at

the Clarendon press. [Later editions of the _Sylloge_ include also the

form of 1531.] One of the most important of these various readings

occurs in the tenth article. In some of the editions which preceded that

of 1540, it is expressed, “that the body and blood of CHRIST are truly

present, and distributed to those who partake of our LORD’S supper; and

the contrary doctrine is reprobated.” The edition of 1540 expresses

that, “with the bread and wine, the body and blood of CHRIST are truly

given to those who partake of our LORD’S supper.”

“In the Confession of Augsburgh,” says Dr. Maclaine, the learned

translator of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, “there are three sorts

of articles; one sort, adopted equally by the Roman Catholics and

Protestants; another, that consists of certain propositions, which the

papal party considered as ambiguous and obscure; and a third, in which

the doctrine of Luther was entirely opposite to that of Rome. This gave

some reason to hope, that, by the means of certain qualifications and

modifications, conducted mutually in a spirit of candour and charity,

matters might be accommodated at last. For this purpose, select persons

were appointed to carry on the salutary work; at first, seven from each

party, consisting of princes, lawyers, and divines; which number was

afterwards reduced to three. Luther’s obstinate, stubborn, and violent

temper rendering him unfit for healing divisions, he was not employed in

these conferences; but he was constantly consulted by the Protestant

party.”

The Confession was read, at a full meeting of the diet, by the

chancellor of the elector of Saxony. It was subscribed by that elector,

and three other princes of the German empire, and then delivered to the

emperor.—_Butler’s Confessions of Faith_. _Robertson’s Sylloge

Confessionum_.

AUGUSTINES. A religious order in the Church of Rome, who followed St.

Augustine’s pretended rule, ordered them by Pope Alexander IV., in 1256.

It is divided into several branches, as hermits of St. Paul, the

Jeronymitans, monks of St. Bridget, the Augustines called Chaussez, who

go without stockings, begun in 1574, by a Portuguese, and confirmed in

1600 and 1602, by Pope Clement VIII. As for the pretended rules of St.

Augustine, they are reduced to three classes, the first comprehending

that the monks ought to possess nothing in particular, nor call anything

their own; that the wealthy who became monks ought to sell what they

had, and give the money to the poor; that those who sued for the

religious habit ought to pass under trial before they were admitted;

that the monks ought to subtract nothing from the monastery, nor receive

anything whatsoever, without the leave of their superior, to whom they

ought to communicate those points of doctrine which they had heard

discoursed of without the monastery; that if any one was stubborn

towards his superior, after the first and second correction in secret he

should be publicly denounced as a rebel; if it happened in the time of

persecution that the monks were forced to retire, they ought immediately

to betake themselves to that place where their superior was withdrawn;

and if for the same reason a monk had saved anything belonging to the

monastery, he should give it up as soon as possible to his superior. The

second class imported that they were to love GOD and their neighbour;

how they were to recite the psalms, and the rest of their office; the

first part of the morning they ought to employ in manual works, and the

rest in reading, and to return in the afternoon to their work again

until the evening; that they ought to possess nothing of their own, be

obedient to their superior, keep silence in eating, have Saturday

allowed to provide themselves with necessaries; and it was lawful for

them to drink wine on Sundays; that when they went abroad they must

always go two together; that they were never to eat out of the

monastery; that they should be conscientious in what they sold, and

faithful in what they bought; that they ought not to utter idle words,

but work with silence; and, lastly, that whoever neglected the practice

of these precepts ought to be corrected and beaten, and that the true

observers of them must rejoice and be confident of their salvation. As

for the third, after having enjoined them to love GOD and their

neighbour, they ought to possess nothing but in common; the superior

ought to distribute everything in the monastery, according to each man’s

necessity, and they should not incline their hearts to temporal things;

that they ought to honour GOD in one another as being become his holy

temples; they must attend prayers at canonical hours, and were not to be

hindered at any other time; that they should pray with attention, and

sing only what was really appointed to be sung; that they ought to apply

themselves to fasting and abstinence with discretion; and that if any of

them was not able to fast, he ought not to eat between meals unless he

was sick; that they must mind what was read to them while they were at

their meals; that none ought to be envious to see the sick better

treated than the rest were, or that something more delicate was given to

those of a weaker constitution; that those who were recovering ought to

make use of comfortable things, and, when recovered, to return to the

common usage; to be grave and modest in their habits; never to be far

from their companion; to express modesty and stayedness in their outward

behaviour; not to cast a lustful eye upon women, nor wish to be seen by

them; nor when at church to harbour any thoughts of women; that when it

was known a friar courted any woman, after having been forewarned

several times, he ought to be corrected; and that if he would not submit

to the correction, he should be turned out of the monastery; that all

correction should be inflicted with charity; that they ought not to

receive letters nor presents in secret; they ought to be contented with

those habits that were given them; that all their works should be

rendered in common; that if some of their relations sent them clothes,

it should be in the superior’s power to give them to whom he pleased;

that he who concealed anything of his own should be proceeded against as

guilty of robbery; they were to wash their own clothes, or have them

washed by others, with the superior’s leave; those who were in any

office should serve their brethren without grudging; that they ought to

shun all lawsuits; that they ought to ask their brethren forgiveness for

any injury done them; to forbear ill language one to another; the

superior was to be obeyed, but not to be proud of his dignity; that the

monks ought to observe these rules out of love, and not slavish fear;

and that this rule ought to be read once a week in the presence of the

monks.

The Augustine monks, (commonly called Black Canons,) according to

Fuller, were established in England later than the Benedictines, that

is, in 1105, though of older existence in Europe. They were next to the

Benedictines in power and wealth. The members of these two orders and

their branches were called _Monks_, those of the Mendicant orders, as

Dominicans and Franciscans, were called _Friars_. (See _Monastery_.) But

_Canon_ was the title more usually assigned to the Augustinians. This

order was more numerous and powerful in Ireland than the Benedictines,

though inferior to them in England. The branches of this order were the

Premonstrants, (or White Canons,) the Victorines, and the Gilbertines.

The Arroasians were merely reformed Augustinians, not a separate branch

of the order. The Augustinians possessed two mitred abbeys, Waltham and

Cirencester; one cathedral priory, Carlisle; one abbey, afterwards

converted into a cathedral by Henry VIII., Bristol.

AUGUSTINE, or AUSTIN, FRIARS. These are not to be confounded with the

above, being one of the minor Mendicant orders, observing the rule of

St. Augustine. Fuller says they first entered England in 1252: “and had

(if not their first) their finest habitation at St. Peter’s the Poor,

London, thence probably taking the denomination of poverty. They were

good disputants; on which account they are remembered still at Oxford by

an act performed by candidates for Mastership, called _Keeping of

Augustines_.” This exercise, with other ancient forms, was abolished by

the University Statute towards the beginning of the present

century.—_Jebb._

AURICULAR CONFESSION. (See _Confession_, _Absolution_.) The confession

of sins at the ear of the priest. The following is the chapter on

confession in the Council of Trent which is obligatory on the Romish

Church.

“From the institution of the sacrament of repentance already set forth,

the Church has always understood, that an entire confession of sins was

also appointed by the LORD; and that it is of Divine right necessary to

all who have lapsed after baptism. Because our LORD JESUS CHRIST, when

about to ascend from earth to heaven, left his priests, his vicars, to

be, as it were, the presidents and judges, to whom all mortal sins, into

which CHRIST’S faithful people should fall, should be brought; in order

that by the power of the keys they might pronounce sentence of remission

or retention. For it is plain that the priests cannot exercise this

judgment, without knowledge of the cause, nor can they observe equity in

enjoining penalties, if men declare their sins only generally, and not

rather particularly and separately. From this it is inferred that it is

right that the penitents should recount in confession all the deadly

sins of which, upon examination, their conscience accuses them, even

though they be most secret and only against the two last commandments,

which not unfrequently grievously wound the soul, and are more dangerous

than those which are openly practised; for as to venial sins, by which

we are not excluded from the grace of GOD, and into which we more

frequently fall, although they may be declared in confession, rightly,

usefully, and without any presumption, as the usage of pious men

declares, yet they may be passed over in silence without offence, and

can be expiated by many other remedies. But since all mortal sins, even

thoughts, make men the children of wrath and the enemies of GOD, it is

necessary to seek from GOD the pardon of all, with open and modest

confession. When, therefore, CHRIST’S faithful people desire to confess

all the sins which occur to their memory, they expose them all beyond

all doubt to the mercy of GOD to be pardoned. But they who do otherwise,

and knowingly keep back any, propose nothing to the Divine mercy to be

pardoned by the priest; for if a sick man is ashamed to uncover his

wound to the physician, he cannot with medicine cure that of which he

has no knowledge. It is, moreover, inferred that those circumstances

should be explained in confession, which change the kind of the sin;

because, without these, neither can the sins themselves be entirely

disclosed by the penitents, nor known to the judges; nor can they

rightly judge of the grievousness of the sin, nor impose upon the

penitents the fitting punishments. Whence it is unreasonable to teach

that these circumstances were sought out by idle men, or that only one

circumstance should be confessed, namely, to have sinned against a

brother. But it is impious to call this confession impossible, which is

appointed to be performed in this manner, or to style it the torture of

consciences: for it appears that nothing else is required of penitents

in the Church, than that, after a man has diligently examined himself,

and explored the recesses and hiding-places of his conscience, he should

confess those sins by which he remembers that he has mortally offended

his LORD and GOD. But the other sins which do not occur to him when

taking diligent thought, are understood to be included altogether in the

same confession; and for these we faithfully say with the prophet,

‘Cleanse thou me, O LORD, from my secret faults.’ But the difficulty of

this sort of confession, and the shame of uncovering sins, would,

indeed, appear grievous, if it were not lightened by the so many and

great conveniences and consolations which are most assuredly conferred

by absolution upon all who rightly approach this sacrament. But as

regards the manner of secretly confessing to the priest alone, although

_Christ_ has not forbidden any man from publicly confessing his faults,

in revenge for his sins, and humiliation of himself, both by way of

example to others, and for the edification of the Church which he has

offended; this is not, however, a Divine command, nor may it be

advisedly enjoined by any human law, that sins, especially secret ones,

should be disclosed by open confession. Wherefore, since that secret

sacramental confession which the holy Church has used from the

beginning, and still uses, has always been approved of by the holiest

and most ancient fathers, with great consent and unanimity, the empty

calumny is plainly refuted of those who are not ashamed to teach that it

is contrary to the Divine command, and a human invention, which had its

origin with the fathers who were assembled in the Lateran Council. For

the Church did not order by the Lateran Council that CHRIST’S faithful

people should confess, which she always had understood to be necessary,

and appointed by Divine right, but that the command of confession should

be complied with at least once in the year, by all and each who have

come to years of discretion; whence now, in the universal Church, that

wholesome custom of confessing in the sacred, and especially acceptable,

time of Lent, is observed with great benefit to the souls of the

faithful; which custom this holy synod highly approves, and receives as

pious and worthy to be retained.”

Here an attempt is made to invest the Christian priesthood with the

prerogative of the Most High, who is a searcher of the hearts, and a

discerner of the thoughts; in forgetfulness of the very distinction

which GOD drew between himself and all men—“man looketh to the outward

part, the LORD trieth the heart.” As CHRIST has invested his ministers

with no power to do this of themselves, the Tridentine Fathers have

sought to supply what they must needs consider a grievous omission on

his part, by enjoining all men to unlock the secrets of their hearts at

the command of their priest, and persons of all ages and sexes to submit

not only to general questions as to a state of sin or repentance, but to

the most minute and searching questions as to their most inmost

thoughts.

The extent to which the confessors have thought it right to carry these

examinations on subjects concerning which the apostle recommends that

they be not once named among Christians, and which may be seen either in

“Dens’ Theology,” or “Burchard’s Decrees,” c. 19, Paris, 1549, affords a

melancholy, painful, and sickening subject for contemplation; especially

when it is considered that they were Christian clergy who did this, and

that it was done in aid, as they supposed, of the Christian religion.

The fearful effects of these examinations upon the priests themselves,

we will do no more than allude to; he who may think it necessary to

satisfy himself upon the point, may consult the cases contemplated and

provided for (among others) by Cardinal Cajetan, in his Opuscula, Lugd.

1562, p. 114. In the Bull of Pius IV., _Contra solicitantes in

confessione_, dated Ap. 16, 1561, (_Bullarium Magn._ Luxemb. 1727, ii.

p. 48,) and in a similar one of Gregory XV., dated Aug. 30, 1622,

(_Gregory XV. Constit. Rom._ 1622, p. 114,) there is laid open another

fearful scene of danger to female confitents from wicked priests,

“mulieres pœnitentes ad actus inhonestos dum earum audiunt confessiones

alliciendo et provocando.” Against which flagrant dangers, and the

preparatory steps of sapping and undermining the mental modesty of a

young person by examinations of particular kinds, it is vain to think

that the feeble bulls of the bishops of Rome can afford any security.

These observations apply to the system of the Roman Church, peculiar to

itself, of _compelling_ the disclosure of the most minute details of the

most secret thoughts and actions. As to _encouraging_ persons whose

minds are _burthened_ with the remembrance of fearful sins, to ease

themselves of the burthen by revealing it to one at whose hands they may

seek guidance, and consolation, and prayer, it is a totally distinct

question, and nothing but wilful art will attempt to confound them. On

this point we see no reason to withdraw a regret which we have before

expressed as to its disuse in the Church of England; for we cannot but

believe that, were it more frequently had recourse to, many a mind would

depart the world at peace with itself and with GOD, which now sinks to

the grave under a bond of doubt and fear, through want of confidence to

make use of ghostly remedies.—_Perceval._

In the sixth canon of the Council of Trent it runs thus:—“If any shall

deny that sacramental confession was instituted and is necessary for

salvation by Divine right, or shall say that the custom of confessing

secretly to the priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always

observed from the beginning, and continues to observe, is foreign to the

institution and command of CHRIST, and is of human invention, let him be

accursed.”

Here sacramental confession is affirmed to be of Divine institution, and

auricular confession likewise, and he is accursed who shall deny it.

This is bravely said; yet the Tridentine Fathers might have recollected

that, in the Latin Church as late as 813, it was matter of dispute

whether there was need to confess to a priest at all, as appears from

the thirty-third canon of the Council of Cabaillon, which is as follows:

“Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere dicunt peccata, quidam vero

sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent: quod utrumque non sine magno

fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam. Ita dumtaxat ut et Deo, qui Remissor

est peccatorum, confiteamur peccata nostra, et cum David dicamus,

_Delictum meum cognitum tibi feci_, &c., et secundum institutionem

apostoli, confiteamur alterutrum peccata nostra, et oremus pro invicem

ut salvemur. _Confessio_ itaque quæ _Deo_ fit, _purgat peccata_, ea vero

quæ sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgentur peccata,” &c. (_Conc._

vii. 1279.) Was Leo the Third asleep, that he could suffer such heresy

to be broached and not denounced? But all the world knows, that, till

1215, no decree of pope or council can be adduced enjoining the

_necessary_ observance of such a custom. Then, at the Council of

Lateran, Innocent III. commanded it. As the Latin Church affords no

sanction to the assertion of the Tridentine Fathers, so is it in vain to

look for it among the Greeks, for there, as Socrates (_Hist. Eccles._ v.

19) and Sozomen (_Hist. Eccles._ vii. 16) inform us, the whole

confessional was abolished by Nectarius, the archbishop of

Constantinople, in the 4th century, by reason of an indecency which was

committed on a female penitent, when pursuing her penance; which, sure,

he would not have ventured to have done had he deemed it a Divine

institution. Sozomen, in his account of the confessional, says, that the

public confession in the presence of all the people, which formerly

obtained, having been found grievous, φορτικὸν ὡς εἰκὸς, a wellbred,

_silent_, and prudent presbyter was set in charge of it; thus plainly

denoting the change from public to auricular confessions. It was this

penitential presbyter whose office was abolished by Nectarius, who acted

by the advice of Eudæmon, συγχωρῆσαι δὲ ἕκαστον, τῷ ἰδίῳ συνειδότι τῶν

μυστηρίων μετέχειν. And the reason he assigned is one which the Church

of Rome would have done well to bear in mind; οὕτω γὰρ μόνως ἔχειν τὴν

ἐκκλησίαν τὸ ἀβλασφήμετον. (See _Perceval on Roman Schism, Hooker, Eccl.

Pol._ book vi. _Bp. Taylor, Ductor Dubit._ part ii. sect. 11.)

AUMBRIE. A little closet or locker. (See _Church_.)

AURORA. The title of a Latin metrical version of several parts of the

Bible, by Petrus de Riga, canon of Rheims, in the 12th century.

AUTOCEPHALI. Αὐτοκεφαλοι, _selfheaded_, or _independent_. A name

originally given to all metropolitans, as having no ecclesiastical

superior, and being amenable only to the judgment of a synod. After the

division of the Church into patriarchates, it was given to such

metropolitans as preserved their independence, and were not subject to

any patriarch—as the bishop of Constantia, or Salamis, in Cyprus.

Bingham, book ii. chap. 18, specifies three kinds of autocephali. 1. All

metropolitans, before patriarchates were established. 2. Certain

metropolitans after the establishment of patriarchates, as those of

Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Iberia: and the Churches of Britain before the

coming of St. Augustin. To which may be added the Church of Ireland,

before its submission to Rome in the 12th century. 3. Bishops

immediately subject to the patriarch of the diocese, who was to them as

a metropolitan. There were twenty-five such subject to the bishop of

Jerusalem. The immediate suffragans of Rome are of the same class.

Bingham considers a fourth class mentioned by Valesius on Euseb. lib. v.

c. 23, as very doubtful; viz. bishops wholly independent of all others.

AUTO DA FE (Spanish); _an Act of Faith_. In the Spanish Church a solemn

day is held by the Inquisition for the punishment of heretics, and the

absolution of the innocent accused. They usually contrive the _Auto_ to

fall on some great festival, that the execution may pass with the more

awe; and it is always on a Sunday. The _Auto da Fe_ may be called the

last act of the inquisitorial tragedy; it is a kind of gaol delivery,

appointed as often as a competent number of prisoners in the Inquisition

are convicted of heresy, either by their own voluntary or extorted

confession, or on the evidence of certain witnesses. The process is

this; in the morning they are brought into a great hall, where they have

certain habits put on, which they are to wear in the procession, and by

which they know their doom. The procession is led up by Dominican

friars, after which come the penitents, being all in black coats without

sleeves, and barefooted, with a wax candle in their hands. These are

followed by the penitents who have narrowly escaped being burnt, who

over their black coats have flames painted, with their points turned

downwards. Next come the negative and relapsed, who are to be burnt,

having flames on their habits pointing upwards. After these come such as

profess doctrines contrary to the faith of Rome, who, besides flames

pointing upwards, have their picture painted on their breasts, with

dogs, serpents, and devils, all open-mouthed, about it. Each prisoner is

attended by a familiar of the Inquisition; and those to be burnt have

also a Jesuit on each hand, who are continually preaching to them to

abjure. After the prisoners comes a troop of familiars on horseback; and

after them the inquisitors, and other officers of the court, on mules;

last of all the inquisitor-general on a white horse led by two men with

black hats and green hatbands. A scaffold is erected large enough for

two or three thousand people; at one end of which are the prisoners, at

the other the inquisitors. After a sermon made up of encomiums of the

Inquisition, and invectives against heretics, a priest ascends a desk

near the scaffold, and, having taken the abjuration of the penitents,

recites the final sentence of those who are to be put to death, and

delivers them to the secular arm, earnestly beseeching at the same time

the secular power _not to touch their blood, or put their lives in

danger_. The prisoners, being thus in the hands of the civil magistrate,

are presently loaded with chains, and carried first to the secular gaol,

and from thence, in an hour or two, brought before the civil judge, who,

after asking in what religion they intend to die, pronounces sentence on

such as declare they die in the communion of the Church of Rome, that

they shall be first strangled, and then burnt to ashes; on such as die

in any other faith, that they be burnt alive. Both are immediately

carried to the Ribera, the place of execution, where there are as many

stakes set up as there are prisoners to be burnt, with a quantity of dry

furze about them. The stakes of the professed, that is, such as persist

in the heresy, are about four yards high, having a small board towards

the top for the prisoner to be seated on. The negative and relapsed

being first strangled and burnt, the professed mount their stakes by a

ladder, and the Jesuits, after several repeated exhortations to be

reconciled to the Church, part with them, telling them that they leave

them to the devil, who is standing at their elbow to receive their

souls, and carry them with him to the flames of hell. On this a great

shout is raised, and the cry is, “_Let the dogs’ beards be made_,” which

is done by thrusting flaming furzes, fastened to long poles, against

their faces, till their faces are burnt to a coal, which is accompanied

with the loudest acclamations of joy. At last fire is set to the furze

at the bottom of the stake, over which the professed are chained so

high, that the top of the flame seldom reaches higher than the seat they

sit on, so that they rather seem roasted than burnt. The same diabolical

ceremony was observed in Portugal.

AVE MARIA. A form of devotion used in the Church of Rome, comprising the

salutation addressed by the angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

(Luke i. 28.) The words “Ave Maria” are the first two, in Latin, of the

form as it appears in the manuals of the Romish Church, thus: “Hail

Mary, (_Ave Maria_,) full of grace, the LORD is with thee,” &c. To which

is appended the following petition: “Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for

us sinners, now, and in the hour of our death. Amen.” Here we find,

first, a misapplication of the words of Scripture, and then an addition

to them. It was not used before the Hours, until the 16th century, in

the Romish offices. It was then introduced into the Breviary by Cardinal

Quignon. Cardinal Bona admits that it is modern.

“I cannot but observe,” says Bingham, “that among all the short prayers

used by the ancients before their sermons, there is never any mention

made of an Ave Mary, now so common in the practice of the Romish Church.

Their addresses were all to GOD; and the invocation of the Holy Virgin

for grace and assistance before sermons was a thing not thought of. They

who are most concerned prove its use can derive its original no higher

than the beginning of the fifteenth century.” But Mosheim (Eccl. Hist.

Cant. xiv. Part ii. ch. iv.) says that Pope John XXII. [1316–33] ordered

Christians to add to their prayers those words with which the angel

Gabriel saluted the Virgin Mary.

AVOIDANCE. Avoidance is where there is a want of a lawful incumbent on a

benefice, during which vacancy the Church is _quasi riduata_, and the

possessions belonging to it are in abeyance. There are many ways by

which avoidance may happen; by death; by cession, or acceptance of a

benefice incompatible; by resignation; by consecration; for when a clerk

is promoted to a bishopric, all his other preferments are void the

instant he is consecrated, and the right of presentation belongs to the

Crown, unless he has a dispensation from the Crown to hold them in

_commendam_: by deprivation, either first by sentence declaratory in the

ecclesiastical court for fit and sufficient causes allowed by the common

law, such as attainder of treason or felony, or conviction of other

infamous crimes in the king’s courts; for heresy, infidelity, gross

immorality, and the like; or secondly, in pursuance of divers penal

statutes, which declare the benefice void, for some nonfeasance or

neglect, or else some malfeasance or crime; as for simony; for

maintaining any doctrine in derogation of the king’s supremacy, or of

the Thirty-nine Articles, or _of the Book of Common Prayer_: for

neglecting after institution to read the liturgy and articles in the

church, or make the declarations against Popery, or take the abjuration

oath; _for using any other form of prayer than the liturgy of the Church

of England_: or for absenting himself sixty days in one year from a

benefice belonging to a Popish patron, to which the clerk was presented

by either of the universities; in all which, and similar cases, the

benefice is _ipso facto_ void, without any formal sentence of

deprivation. No person can take any dignity or benefice in Ireland until

he has resigned all his preferments in England; and by such resignation

the king is deprived of the presentation.—_Stephens on the Laws relating

to the Clergy_, p. 91.

AZYMITES. A name given to the Latins, by those of the Greek Church,

because they consecrate the holy eucharist in unleavened bread (έν

άζυμοις). The more ancient custom was to consecrate a portion of the

oblations of the faithful, and therefore of course in leavened bread.

The wafer, or unleavened bread, is still retained in the Church of Rome,

although the catechism of the Council of Trent admits that the eucharist

may also be consecrated in common bread. In the Church of England

unleavened bread was prescribed by Queen Elizabeth’s injunctions, and

was generally used throughout her reign. At Westminster, it was retained

until 1642, nor has it since been forbidden; but the use of leavened

bread is now universal, as in the primitive Church.

BACHELOR. In the universities of the Church, bachelors are persons who

have attained to the baccalaureate, or taken the first degree in arts,

divinity, law, or physic. This degree in some universities has no

existence, in some the _Candidatus_ answers to it. It was first

introduced in the thirteenth century, by Pope Gregory IX., though it is

still unknown in Italy. Bachelors of Arts are not admitted to that

degree at Oxford and Dublin till after having studied four years at

those universities. At Cambridge, the regular period of matriculation is

in the October term; and an undergraduate who proceeds regularly will be

admitted to his B. A. in three years from the following January.

Bachelors of Divinity, before they can acquire that degree either at

Oxford or Cambridge, must be of fourteen years’ standing in the

university. Bachelors of Laws, to acquire the degree in Oxford or

Cambridge, must have previously studied the law six years. Bachelors of

Canon Law are admitted after two years’ study, and sustaining an act

according to the forms. Bachelors of Medicine must have studied two

years in medicine, after having been four years M. A. in the university,

and must have passed an examination; after which they are invested with

the fur in order to be licensed. Bachelors of Music in the English and

Irish universities must have studied music for a certain number of

years, and are admitted to the degree after the composition and

performance of a musical exercise. Anciently the grade of Bachelor, at

least in arts, was hardly considered as a degree, but merely a step

towards the Doctorate or Mastership. In fact, Bachelors in any faculty,

as such, have no voice in the university convocations or senates.

Bachelors in Divinity have, because they must necessarily have been

Masters of Art previously. But Bachelors of Law and Medicine have no

votes, unless they happen to be Masters of Arts also. In the French, as

in the Scotch universities, the degree of Bachelor of Arts was taken

while the student was still in _statu pupillari_, and in fact

corresponded very much to the Sophisters in our universities, the A. M.

in these places practically correspond to our degree of A. B.

BAMPTON LECTURES. A course of eight sermons preached annually at the

university of Oxford, set on foot by the Reverend John Bampton, canon of

Salisbury. According to the directions in his will, they are to be

preached upon any of the following subjects:—To confirm and establish

the Christian faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics; upon

the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures; upon the authority of the

writings of the primitive fathers, as to the faith and practice of the

primitive Church; upon the Divinity of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS

CHRIST; upon the Divinity of the HOLY GHOST; upon the articles of the

Christian faith, as comprehended in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. For

the support of this lecture he bequeathed his lands and estates to the

chancellor, masters, and scholars of the university of Oxford for ever,

upon trust that the vice-chancellor, for the time being, take and

receive all the rents and profits thereof; and, after all taxes,

reparations, and necessary deductions made, to pay all the remainder to

the endowment of these divinity lecture sermons. He also directs in his

will, that no person shall be qualified to preach these lectures, unless

he have taken the degree of Master of Arts, at least, in one of the two

universities of Oxford or Cambridge, and that the same person shall

never preach the same sermon twice. A number of excellent sermons

preached at this lecture are now before the public.

BAND. This part of the clerical dress, which is too well known to need

description, is the only remaining relic of the ancient _amice_. (See

_Amice_.) When the beard was worn, and when ruffs came in, this ancient

part of clerical dress fell into disuse, but it was generally resumed

after the Restoration. The band is not, however, an exclusively clerical

vestment, being part of the full dress of the bar and of the

universities, and of other bodies in which a more ancient habit is

retained, as in some schools of old foundation. Formerly it was worn by

graduates, and even under-graduates, at the universities; nor was the

custom altogether extinct within memory. It is still worn by the

scholars at Winchester, &c., and was anciently worn with the surplice by

lay vicars, singing men, and sometimes by parish clerks.

BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY. This was a celebrated controversy within the

Church of England in the reign of George I., and received its name from

Hoadly, who, although bishop of Bangor, was little else than a Socinian

heretic. Hoadly published “A Preservative against the Principles and

Practice of the Nonjurors,” and soon after, a sermon, which the king had

ordered to be printed, entitled, “The Nature of the Kingdom of Christ.”

This discourse is a very confused production; nor, except in the

bitterness of its spirit, is it easy, amidst the author’s “periods of a

mile,” to discover his precise aim. To the perplexed arguments of Bishop

Hoadly, Dr. Snape and Dr. Sherlock wrote replies; and a committee of

convocation passed a censure upon the discourse. An order from

government arrested the proceedings of the convocation. Snape and

Sherlock were removed from their office of chaplains to the king; and

the convocation has never yet been again permitted to assemble for the

transaction of business. But the exertion of power on the part of the

government was unable to silence those who were determined, at any

sacrifice, to maintain GOD’S truth. This controversy continued to employ

the press for many years, until those who held Low Church views were

entirely silenced by the force of argument. Of the works produced by the

Bangorian Controversy, perhaps the most important is _Law’s Letters to

Hoadly_, which were reprinted in “_The Scholar Armed_,” and have since

been republished. _Law’s Letters_ have never been answered, and may

indeed be regarded as unanswerable.

BANNER. In the chapels of orders of knighthood, as in St. George’s

chapel, Windsor, the chapel of the order of the Garter; in Henry VII.’s

chapel, at Westminster, the chapel of the order of the Bath; and in St.

Patrick’s cathedral, the chapel of the order of St. Patrick; the banner

of each knight, i. e. a little square flag bearing his arms, is

suspended, at his installation, over his appropriate stall. The

installation of a knight is a _religious ceremony_; hence the propriety

of this act. The same decorations formerly existed in the chapel of

Holyrood House, the chapel of the order of the Thistle.

Also it is not uncommon to see banners taken in battle suspended over

the tombs of victorious generals. This is a beautiful way of expressing

thankfulness to GOD for that victory which he alone can give; and it

were much to be wished that a spirit of pride and vain-glory should

never mingle with the religious feeling.

Banners were formerly a part of the accustomed ornaments of the altar,

and were suspended over it, “that in the church the triumph of CHRIST

may evermore be held in mind, by which we also hope to triumph over our

enemy.”—_Durandus._

BANNS OF MARRIAGE. “Bann” comes from a barbarous Latin word which

signifies to put out an edict or proclamation. “_Matrimonial banns_” are

such proclamations as are solemnly made in the church, or in some other

lawful congregation of men, in order to the solemnization of matrimony.

Before any can be canonically married, except by a licence from the

bishop’s court, banns are directed to be published in the church; and

this proclamation should be made on _three_ several solemn days, in all

the churches of that place where the parties, willing to contract

marriage, dwell. This rule is principally to be observed when the said

parties are of different parishes; for the care of the Church to prevent

clandestine marriages is as old as Christianity itself: and the design

of the Church is, to be satisfied whether there be any “just cause or

impediment,” why the persons so asked “should not be joined together in

holy matrimony.”

The following are the regulations under which the Church of England now

acts on this subject:—

No minister shall be obliged to publish the banns of matrimony between

any persons whatsoever, unless they shall, seven days at least before

the time required for the first publication, deliver or cause to be

delivered to him a notice in writing of their true Christian and

surnames, and of the houses of their respective abodes within such

parish, chapelry, or extra-parochial place, where the banns are to be

published, and of the time during which they have inhabited or lodged in

such houses respectively. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 2.) And all banns of

matrimony shall be published in the parish church, or in some public

chapel wherein banns of matrimony have been usually published, (i. e.

before the 25th of March, 1754,) of the parish or chapelry wherein the

persons to be married shall dwell. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 1.) And

where the persons to be married shall dwell in divers parishes or

chapelries, the banns shall be published in the church or chapel

belonging to such parish or chapelry wherein each of the said persons

shall dwell. And where both or either of the persons to be married shall

dwell in any extra-parochial place, (having no church or chapel wherein

banns have been usually published,) then the banns shall be published in

the parish church or chapel belonging to some parish or chapelry

adjoining to such extra-parochial place. And the said banns shall be

published upon three Sundays preceding the solemnization of marriage

during the time of morning service, or of the evening service, if there

be no morning service in such church or chapel on any of those Sundays,

_immediately after the second lesson_. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 1.)

While the marriage is contracting, the minister shall inquire of the

people by three public banns, concerning the freedom of the parties from

all lawful impediments. And if any minister shall do otherwise, he shall

be suspended for three years.

Rubric. And the curate shall say after the accustomed manner:—“I publish

the banns of marriage between M. of ——, and N. of ——. If any of you know

cause or just impediment why these two persons should not be joined

together in holy matrimony, ye are to declare it. This is the first

(second, or third) time of asking.”

And in case the parents or guardians, or one of them, of either of the

parties, who shall be under the age of twenty-one years, shall openly

and publicly declare, or cause to be declared, in the church or chapel

where the banns shall be so published, at the time of such publication,

his dissent to such marriage, such publication of banns shall be void.

(26 George II. c. 3, s. 3.)

Rubric. And where the parties dwell in divers parishes, the curate of

one parish shall not solemnize marriage between them, without a

certificate of the banns being thrice asked, from the curate of the

other parish.

Formerly the rubric enjoined that the banns should be published after

the Nicene Creed; but the lamentable deficiency of publicity of which

this arrangement was the cause, and the delay hence arising in

consequence of some parishes being without any morning service on some

Sundays, induced the legislature to make the provisions above cited. (26

George II. c. 33, s. 1.)

It is to be feared that much laxity prevails among parties to whom the

inquiries as to parochial limits are intrusted; and that recent

enactments have rather augmented than reformed such laxity. The

constitutions and canons of 1603 guard cautiously against clandestine

marriages. Canon 62 is as follows:—

_Ministers not to marry any persons without banns or licence._—No

minister, upon pain of suspension _per triennium ipso facto_, shall

celebrate matrimony between any persons, without a faculty or licence

granted by some of the persons in these our constitutions expressed,

except the banns of matrimony have been first published three several

Sundays, or holidays, in the time of Divine service, in the parish

churches and chapels where the said parties dwell, according to the Book

of Common Prayer. Neither shall any minister, upon the like pain, under

any pretence whatsoever, join any persons so licensed in marriage at any

unseasonable times, but only between the hours of eight and twelve in

the forenoon; nor in any private place, but either in the said churches

or chapels where one of them dwelleth, and likewise in time of Divine

service; nor when banns are thrice asked, and no licence in that respect

necessary, before the parents or governors of the parties to be married,

being under the age of twenty and one years, shall either personally, or

by sufficient testimony, signify to them their consents given to the

said marriage.

Canon 63. _Ministers of exempt churches not to marry without banns or

license._—Every minister, who shall hereafter celebrate marriage between

any persons contrary to our said constitutions, or any part of them,

under colour of any peculiar liberty or privilege claimed to appertain

to certain churches and chapels, shall be suspended _per triennium_ by

the ordinary of the place where the offence shall be committed. And if

any such minister shall afterwards remove from the place where he hath

committed that fault, before he be suspended, as is aforesaid, then

shall the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place where he

remaineth, upon certificate under the hand and seal of the other

ordinary, from whose jurisdiction he removed, execute that censure upon

him.

See also canon 70. By the statute 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 85, sec. 1, it is

enacted, that where, by any law or canon in force before the passing of

this act, it is provided that any “marriage may be solemnized after

publication of banns, such marriage may be solemnized, in like manner,

_on production of the registrar’s certificate as hereinafter provided_:”

so that marriages may now be solemnized in the Church of England,

without banns or licence, on production of the superintendent

registrar’s certificate.

BAPTISM. (Βάπτειν, to wash.) Baptism is one of the two sacraments,

which, according to the Catechism, “are generally necessary to

salvation.” Our blessed SAVIOUR says that “except a man be born again he

cannot see the kingdom of God” (John iii. 3); and in explanation of his

meaning he adds, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born

of water and of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of GOD”

(ver. 5). Upon this the Church remarks: “Beloved, ye hear in this Gospel

the express words of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, that, except a man be born of

water and of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of GOD:

whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of this sacrament where it

may be had. Likewise immediately before his ascension into heaven, as we

read in the last chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel, he gave command to his

disciples, saying, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to

every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he

that believeth not shall be damned.’ Which also showeth unto us the

great benefit we reap thereby. For which cause, St. Peter the apostle,

when, upon his first preaching of this gospel, many were pricked at the

heart, and said unto him and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men and

brethren, what shall we do?’ replied and said unto them, ‘Repent, and be

_baptized_ every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall

receive the gift of the HOLY GHOST.’ The same apostle testifieth in

another place, ‘even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away

of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards

GOD, by the resurrection of JESUS CHRIST.’”—_Office of Adult Baptism._

The Church also states in the Catechism, that a sacrament, as baptism

is, hath two parts, the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual

grace: that the outward visible sign or form in baptism is water,

wherein the person is baptized in the name of the FATHER, and of the

SON, and of the HOLY GHOST; and that the inward and spiritual grace,

which through the means of baptism 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. Therefore the Church, as soon as ever a child is baptized,

directs the minister to say, “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.” The Church here first declares

that grace has been given, even the grace of regeneration, and then

implies that the grace, if not used, may be lost. On this subject more

will be said in the article on _Regeneration_. See also _Infant

Baptism_.

Grotius (_Annot. ad_ Matt. iii. 6) is of opinion, that the rite of

baptism had its original from the time of the deluge; immediately after

which he thinks it was instituted, in memory of the world having been

purged by water. Some learned men think (_W. Schickard, de Jur. Reg._

cap. 5) it was added to circumcision, soon after the Samaritan schism,

as a mark of distinction to the orthodox Jews. Spencer, who is fond of

deriving the rites of the Jewish religion from the ceremonies of the

Pagan, lays it down as a probable supposition, that the Jews received

the baptism of proselytes from the neighbouring nations, who were wont

to prepare candidates for the more sacred functions of their religion by

a solemn ablution; that, by this affinity of sacred rites, they might

draw the Gentiles to embrace their religion, and the proselytes (in

gaining of whom they were extremely diligent, Matt. xxiii. 15) might the

more easily comply with the transition from Gentilism to Judaism. In

confirmation of this opinion, he observes, first, that there is no

Divine precept for the baptism of proselytes, God having enjoined only

the rite of circumcision, (Exod. xii. 48,) for the admission of

strangers into the Jewish religion; secondly, that, among foreign

nations, the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and others, it was

customary that those who were to be initiated into their mysteries or

sacred rites, should be first purified by dipping their whole body in

water. Grotius, on Matt. xxvi. 27, adds, as a further confirmation of

his opinion, that the “cup of blessing” likewise, added to the Paschal

supper, seems plainly to have been derived from a Pagan original: for

the Greeks, at their feasts, had one cup, called ποτήριον ἀγαθοῦ

δαίμονος, the cup of the good demon or god, which they drank at the

conclusion of their entertainment, when the table was removed. Since,

then, a rite of Gentile original was added to one of the Jewish

sacraments, viz. the Passover, there can be no absurdity in supposing,

that baptism, which was added to the other sacrament, namely,

circumcision, might be derived from the same source. In the last place,

he observes, that Christ, in the institution of his sacraments, paid a

peculiar regard to those rites which were borrowed from the Gentiles;

for, rejecting circumcision and the Paschal supper, he adopted into his

religion baptism and the sacred cup; thus preparing the way for the

conversion and reception of the Gentiles into his Church.

It is to be observed, under this head of Jewish baptism, that the

proselyte was not to be baptized till the wound of circumcision was

perfectly healed; that then the ceremony was performed by plunging him

into some large, natural receptacle of water; and that baptism was never

after repeated in the same person, or in any of his posterity, who

derived their legal purity from the baptism of their ancestor.—_Selden,

de Jur. Nat. et Gent._ lib. ii. cap. 1.

In the primitive Christian Church, (_Tertull. de Baptismo_,) the office

of baptizing was vested principally in the bishops and priests, or

pastors of the respective parishes; but, with the consent of the bishop,

it was allowed to the deacons, and in cases of necessity even to laymen,

to baptize; but never, under any necessity whatever, was it permitted to

women to perform this office. Nor was it enough that baptism was

conferred by a person called to the ministry, unless he was also

orthodox in the faith. This became matter of great excitement in the

Church; and hence arose the famous controversy between Cyprian and

Stephen, bishop of Rome, concerning the rebaptizing those who had been

baptized by heretics, Cyprian asserting that they ought to be

rebaptized, and Stephen maintaining the contrary opinion.

The persons baptized were either infants or adults. To prove that

infants were admitted to the sacrament of baptism, we need only use this

argument. None were admitted to the eucharist till they had received

baptism: but in the primitive Church children received the sacrament of

the LORD’S supper, as appears from what Cyprian relates concerning a

sucking child, who so violently refused to taste the sacramental wine,

that the deacon was obliged forcibly to open her lips and pour it down

her throat. Origen writes, that children are baptized, “for the purging

away of the natural filth and original impurity inherent in them.” We

might add the testimonies of Irenæus and Cyprian; but it will be

sufficient to mention the determination of an African synod, held A. D.

254, at which were present sixty-six bishops. The occasion of it was

this. A certain bishop, called Fidus, had some scruples concerning the

time of baptizing infants, whether it ought to be done on the second or

third day after their birth, or not before the eighth day, as was

observed with respect to circumcision under the Jewish dispensation. His

scruples were proposed to this synod, who unanimously decreed, that the

baptism of children was not to be deferred so long, but that the grace

of God, or baptism, should be given to all, and most especially unto

infants.—_Justin Martyr, Second Apology_; _De Lapsis_, § 20; _In Lucam_,

Hom. xiv. _Apud Cyprian_. Epist. lix. § 2–4. _Tertull. de Baptismo_, c.

19.

As for the _time_, or season, at which baptism was usually administered,

we find it to have been restrained to the two solemn festivals of the

year, Easter and Whitsuntide: at Easter, in memory of Christ’s death and

resurrection, correspondent to which are the two parts of the Christian

life, represented and shadowed out in baptism, _dying_ unto sin, and

_rising_ again unto newness of life; and at Whitsuntide, in memory of

the Holy Ghost’s being shed upon the apostles, the same, in some

measure, being represented and conveyed in baptism. It is to be

observed, that these stated returns of the time of baptism related only

to persons in health: in other cases, such as sickness, or any pressing

necessity, the time of baptism was regulated by occasion and

opportunity.

The _place_ of baptism was at first unlimited; being some pond or lake,

some spring or river, but always as near as possible to the place of

public worship. Afterwards they had their _baptisteries_, or (as we call

them) _fonts_, built at first near the church, then in the church-porch,

and at last in the church itself. There were many in those days who were

desirous to be baptized in the river Jordan, out of reverence to the

place where our Saviour himself had been baptized.

The person to be baptized, if an adult, was first examined by the

bishop, or officiating priest, who put some questions to him; as, first,

whether he abjured the devil and all his works; secondly, whether he

gave a firm assent to all the articles of the Christian faith: to both

which he answered in the affirmative. Concerning these baptismal

questions, Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his letter to Xistus, bishop of

Rome, speaks of a certain scrupulous person in his church, who, being

present at baptism, was exceedingly troubled, when he heard the

questions and answers of those who were baptized. If the person to be

baptized was an infant, these interrogatories were answered by his

sponsores, or godfathers. Whether the use of _sponsores_ was as old as

the apostles’ days, is uncertain: perhaps it was not, since Justin

Martyr, speaking of the method and form of baptism, says not a word of

them.—_Tertull. de Coron. Milit. Cyprian, Epist._ vii. § 5. _Justin

Martyr, Apolog._ 2. _Apud Euseb._ lib. vii. c. 9; _Apolog._ 2.

After the questions and answers, followed _exorcism_, the manner and end

of which was this. The minister laid his hands on the person’s head, and

breathed in his face, implying thereby the driving away, or expelling,

of the devil from him, and preparing him for baptism, by which the good

and holy Spirit was to be conferred upon him.

After exorcism, followed _baptism_ itself: and first the minister, by

prayer, consecrated the water for that use. Tertullian says, “any waters

may be applied to that use; but then God must be first invocated, and

then the Holy Ghost presently comes down from heaven, and moves upon

them, and sanctifies them.” The water being consecrated, the person was

baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

Ghost;” by which “dedication of him to the blessed Trinity, the person”

(says Clemens Alexandrinus) “is delivered from the corrupt trinity, the

devil, the world, and the flesh.”—_Tertull. de Baptismo. Justin Martyr,

Apolog._ 2.

In performing the ceremony of baptism, the usual custom was to immerse

and dip the whole body. Thus St. Barnabas, describing a baptized person,

says, “We go down into the water full of sin and filth, but we ascend

bearing fruit in our hearts.” And that all occasions of scandal and

immodesty might be prevented in so sacred an action, the men and women

were baptized in distinct apartments; the women having deaconesses to

undress and dress them. Then followed the unction, by which (says St.

Cyril) was signified, that they were now cut off from the wild olive,

and were ingrafted into Christ, the true olive-tree; or else to show,

that they were now to be champions for the gospel, and were anointed

thereto, as the old Athletæ were against their solemn games. With this

anointing was joined the sign of the cross, made upon the forehead of

the person baptized; which being done, he had a white garment given him,

to denote his being washed from the defilements of sin, or in allusion

to the words of the apostle, “as many as are baptized into Christ have

put on Christ.” From this custom the feast of Pentecost, which was one

of the annual seasons of baptism, came to be called Whitsunday, i. e.

Whitesunday. This garment was afterwards laid up in the church, that it

might be an evidence against such persons as violated or denied that

faith which they had owned in baptism. Of this we have a remarkable

instance under the Arian persecution in Africa. Elpidophorus, a citizen

of Carthage, had lived a long time in the communion of the Church, but,

apostatizing afterwards to the Arians, became a most bitter and

implacable persecutor of the orthodox. Among several whom he sentenced

to the rack, was one Miritas, a venerable old deacon, who, being ready

to be put upon the rack, pulled out the white garment with which

Elpidophorus had been clothed at his baptism, and, with tears in his

eyes, thus addressed him before all the people. “These, Elpidophorus,

thou minister of error, these are the garments that shall accuse thee,

when thou shalt appear before the majesty of the Great Judge; these are

they which girt thee, when thou camest pure out of the holy font; and

these are they which shall bitterly pursue thee, when thou shalt be cast

into the place of flames; because thou hast clothed thyself with cursing

as with a garment, and hast cast off the sacred obligation of thy

baptism.”—_Epist. Cathol._ § 9. _Cave’s Primitive Christianity_, p. i.

c. 10. _Epiph. Hæres._ 79. _Ambrose de Sacr._ lib. i. c. 21. Gal. iii.

27. _Victor. Utic. de Persecut. Vandal._ lib. iii.

But though immersion was the usual practice, yet sprinkling was in some

cases allowed, as in clinic baptism, or the baptism of such persons as

lay sick in bed. It is true, this kind of baptism was not esteemed so

perfect and effectual as that by immersion or dipping; for which reason,

in some Churches, none were advanced to the order of the priesthood, who

had been so baptized; an instance of which we have in Novatian, whose

ordination was opposed by all the clergy upon that account; though

afterward, at the entreaties of the bishop, they consented to it.

Notwithstanding which general opinion, Cyprian, in a set discourse on

this subject, declares that he thought this baptism to be as perfect and

valid as that performed more solemnly by immersion.—_Epist. Cornel. ad

Fabium Antioch. apud Euseb._ lib. vi. cap. 43. Epist. lxxvi. § 9.

_Apolog._ 2.

When baptism was performed, the person baptized, according to Justin

Martyr, “was received into the number of the faithful, who then sent up

their public prayers to God, for all men, for themselves, and for those

who had been baptized.”

As the Church granted baptism to all persons duly qualified to receive

it, so there were some whom she debarred from the benefits of this holy

rite. The author of the _Apostolical Constitutions_ mentions several.

_Bingham, Orig. Eccles._ b. xi. cap. 5, § 6, &c. _Const. Apost._ lib.

viii. cap. 32. Such were panders, or procurers; whores; makers of images

or idols; actors and stage-players; gladiators, charioteers, and

gamesters; magicians, enchanters, astrologers, diviners, and wandering

beggars. Concerning stage-players, the Church seems to have considered

them in the very same light as the ancient heathens themselves did: for

Tertullian (_Tertull. de Spectac._ cap. 22) observes that they who

professed those arts were branded with infamy, degraded, and denied many

privileges, driven from the court, from pleading, from the order of

knighthood, and all other honours in the Roman city and commonwealth. It

has been a question, whether the _military life_ disqualified a man for

baptism: but the contrary appears from the _Constitutions_, lib. viii.

cap. 32, which admit _soldiers_ to the baptism of the Church, on the

same terms that St. John Baptist admitted them to his; namely, that they

should do violence to no man, accuse no one falsely, and be content with

their wages, Luke iii. 14. The state of _concubinage_ is another case

which has been matter of doubt. The rule in the _Constitutions_, lib.

viii. c. 32, concerning the matter is this: a concubine, that is, a

slave to an infidel, if she keep herself only to him, may be received to

baptism; but, if she commit fornication with others, she shall be

rejected. The Council of Toledo (_Conc. Tolet._ 1, can. 17)

distinguishes between a man’s having a wife and a concubine at the same

time, and keeping a concubine only: the latter case it considers as no

disqualification for the sacraments, and only insists that a man be

content to be joined to one woman only, whether wife or concubine, as he

pleases.

Though baptism was esteemed by the Church as a Divine and heavenly

institution, yet there wanted not sects, in the earliest ages, who

either rejected it in whole or in part, or greatly corrupted it. The

Ascodrutæ wholly rejected it, because they would admit of no external or

corporeal symbols whatever. The Archontics, who imagined that the world

was not created by the supreme God, but by certain ἄρχοντες, or powers,

the chief of whom they called Sabaoth, rejected this whole rite, as a

foreign institution, given by Sabaoth, the God of the Jews, whom they

distinguished from the supreme God. The Seleucians and Hermians rejected

baptism by water, on pretence that it was not the baptism instituted by

Christ; because St. John Baptist, comparing his own baptism with that of

Christ, says, “I baptize you with water, but he that cometh after me

shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matt. iii. 11.

They thought that the souls of men consisted of fire and spirit, and

therefore that a baptism by fire was more suitable to their nature.

Another sect which rejected water-baptism, were the Manichees, who

looked upon it as of no efficacy towards salvation: but whether they

admitted any other kind of baptism, we are not told. The Paulicians, a

branch of this heresy, maintained that the word of the gospel is

baptism, because our Lord said, “I am the living water.”—_Bingham Orig.

Eccles._ b. x. cap. 2, § 1. _Epiph. Hæres._ 40. _Theod. Hær. Fab._ l. i.

cap. 11. _August. de Hæres._ cap. 59. _Philastr. de Hæres. Prædestinat.

Hæres._ 40. _Euthym. Panoplia_, Par. ii. tit. 21.

Though the ancient Church considered baptism as indispensably necessary

to salvation, it was always with this restriction, provided it could be

had: in extraordinary cases, wherein baptism could not be had, though

men were desirous of it, they made several exceptions in behalf of other

things, which in such circumstances were thought sufficient to supply

the want of it. (_Bingham_, § 19, 20.) The chief of these excepted cases

was martyrdom, which usually goes by the name of second baptism, or

baptism in men’s own blood, in the writings of the ancients. (_Cyprian_.

Ep. lxiii. _ad Julian_.) This baptism, they suppose, our Lord spoke of,

when he said, “I have another baptism to be baptized with,” alluding to

his own future martyrdom on the cross. In the _Acts of the Martyrdom of

Perpetua_, there is mention of one Saturus, a catechumen, who, being

thrown to a leopard, was, by the first bite of the wild beast, so bathed

in blood, that the people, in derision of the Christian doctrine of

martyrdom, cried out _salvum lotum, salvum lotum_, baptized and saved,

baptized and saved. (_Bingham_, § 24.) But these exceptions and

allowances were with respect to adult persons only, who could make some

compensation, by acts of faith and repentance, for the want of the

external ceremony of baptism. But, as to infants who died without

baptism, the case was thought more difficult, because they were

destitute both of “the outward visible sign and the inward spiritual

grace of baptism.” Upon which account they who spoke the most favourably

of their case, would only venture to assign them a middle state, neither

in heaven nor hell.—_Greg. Naz._ Orat. 40. _Sever. Catena in Johan._

iii.

For the rest, the rite of baptism was esteemed as the most universal

absolution and grand indulgence of the ministry of the Church; as

conveying a general pardon of sin to every true member of Christ; and as

the key of the sacraments, that opens the gate of the kingdom of heaven.

_Bingham_, b. xix, c. i. § 9.

Baptism is defined by the Church of Rome (_Alet’s Ritual_) to be “a

sacrament, instituted by our SAVIOUR, to wash away original sin, and all

those we may have committed; to communicate to mankind the spiritual

regeneration, and the grace of CHRIST JESUS; and to unite them to him,

as the living members to the head.”

When a child is to be baptized in that Church, the persons who bring it

wait for the priest at the door of the Church, who comes thither in his

surplice and purple stole, attended by his clerks. He begins with

questioning the godfathers, whether they promise, in the child’s name,

to live and die in the true Catholic and Apostolic faith, and what name

they would give the child. Then follows an exhortation to the sponsors;

after which the priest, calling the child by its name, asks it as

follows: “What dost thou demand of the Church?” The godfather answers,

“Eternal life.” The priest goes on; “If you are desirous of obtaining

eternal life, keep God’s commandments, Thou shalt love the Lord thy

God,” &c. After which he breathes three times in the child’s face,

saying, “Come out of this child, thou evil spirit, and make room for the

Holy Ghost.” This said, he makes the sign of the cross on the child’s

forehead and breast, saying, “Receive the sign of the cross on thy

forehead, and in thy heart.” Then, taking off his cap, he repeats a

short prayer, and, laying his hand gently on the child’s head, repeats a

second prayer: which ended, he blesses some salt, and, putting a little

of it into the child’s mouth, pronounces these words: “Receive the salt

of wisdom.” All this is performed at the church door.

The priest, with the godfathers and godmothers, coming into the church,

and advancing towards the font, repeat the Apostles’ Creed and the

_Lord’s_ Prayer. Being come to the font, the priest exorcises the evil

spirit again, and, taking a little of his own spittle, with the thumb of

his right hand, rubs it on the child’s ears and nostrils, repeating, as

he touches the right ear, the same word (Ephatha, “be thou opened”)

which our Saviour made use of to the man born deaf and dumb. Lastly,

they pull off its swaddling-clothes, or strip it below the shoulders,

during which the priest prepares the oils, &c.

The sponsors then hold the child directly over the font, observing to

turn it due east and west; whereupon the priest asks the child, “whether

he renounces the devil and all his works,” and, the godfather having

answered in the affirmative, the priest anoints the child between the

shoulders in the form of a cross. Then, taking some of the consecrated

water, he pours part of it thrice on the child’s head, at each perfusion

calling on one of the persons of the holy Trinity. The priest concludes

the ceremony of baptism with an exhortation.

It is to be observed, that, in the naming the child, all profane names,

such as those of the heathens and their gods, are never admitted; and

that a priest is authorized to change the name of a child (though it be

a Scripture name) who has been baptized by a Protestant minister.

Benserade, we are told, had like to have had his Christian name, which

was Isaac, changed, when the bishop confirmed him, had he not prevented

it by a jest: for, when they would have changed his name, and given him

another, he asked them, “What they gave him into the bargain;” which so

pleased the bishop, that he permitted him to retain his former name.

The Romish Church allows midwives, in cases of danger, to baptize a

child before it is come entirely out of its mother’s womb: where it is

to be observed, that some part of the body of the child must appear

before it can be baptized, and that it is baptized on the part which

first appears: if it be the head it is not necessary to rebaptize the

child; but if only a foot or hand appears, it is necessary to repeat

baptism. A still-born child, thus baptized, may be buried in consecrated

ground. A monster, or creature that has not the human form, must not be

baptized: if it be doubtful whether it be a human creature or not, it is

baptized conditionally thus, “If thou art a man, I baptize thee,” &c.

The Greek Church differs from the Romish, as to the rite of baptism,

chiefly, in performing it by immersion, or plunging the infant all

over in the water, which the relations of the child take care to have

warmed, and throw into it a collection of the most odoriferous

flowers.—_Rycaut’s State of the Greek Church._

The Church of England (Article xxvii.) defines baptism to be, “not only

a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are

discerned from others that be not christened; but it is also a sign of

regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that

receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of the

forgiveness of sin, of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy

Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, faith is confirmed, and grace

increased, by virtue of prayer to God.” It is added, “that the baptism

of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most

agreeable with the institution of Christ.”

In the rubrics of her liturgy, (see Office for Ministration of Public

Baptism,) the Church prescribes, that baptism be administered only on

Sundays and holy days, except in cases of necessity. She requires

sponsors for infants; for every male child two godfathers and one

godmother; and for every female two godmothers and one godfather. We

find this provision made by a constitution of Edmond, archbishop of

Canterbury, A. D. 1236; and in a synod held at Worcester, A. D. 1240. By

the 29th canon of our Church, no parent is to be admitted to answer as

godfather to his own child.—_Bp. Gibson’s Codex_, vol. i. p. 439.

The form of administering baptism is too well known to require a

particular account to be given of it. We shall only observe some of the

more material differences between the form, as it stood in the first

liturgy of King Edward, and that in our Common Prayer Book at present.

First, in that of King Edward, we meet with a form of exorcism, founded

upon the like practice of the primitive Church, which our reformers left

out, when they took a review of the liturgy in the 5th and 6th of that

king. It is as follows.

“_Then let the priest, looking upon the children, say;_

“I command thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, and of the

Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that thou come out, and depart from these

infants, whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath vouchsafed to call to his holy

baptism, to be made members of his body, and of his holy congregation.

Therefore, thou cursed spirit, remember thy sentence, remember thy

judgment, remember the day to be at hand, wherein thou shalt burn in

fire everlasting, prepared for thee and thy angels. And presume not

hereafter to exercise any tyranny towards these infants, whom Christ

hath bought with his precious blood, and by this his holy baptism

calleth to be of his flock.”

The form of consecrating the water did not make a part of the office in

King Edward’s liturgy, as it does in the present, because the water in

the font was changed and consecrated but once a month. The form likewise

itself was something different from that we now use, and was introduced

with a short prayer, that “Jesus Christ, upon whom (when he was

baptized) the Holy Ghost came down in the likeness of a dove, would send

down the same Holy Spirit, to sanctify the fountain of baptism; which

prayer was afterwards left out, at the second review.

By King Edward’s First Book, the minister is to “dip the child in the

water thrice; first dipping the right side; secondly the left; the third

time dipping the face toward the font.” This trine immersion was a very

ancient practice in the Christian Church, and used in honour of the Holy

Trinity: though some later writers say, it was done to represent the

death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, together with his three days’

continuance in the grave. Afterwards, the Arians making an ill use of

it, by persuading the people that it was used to denote that the three

persons in the Trinity were three distinct substances, the orthodox left

it off, and used only one single immersion.—_Tertull. adv. Prax._ c. 26.

_Greg. Nyss. de Bapt. Christi. Cyril, Catech. Mystag._

By the first Common Prayer of King Edward, after the child was baptized,

the godfathers and godmothers were to lay their hands upon it, and the

minister was to put on him the white vestment commonly called the

Chrysome, and to say: “Take this white vesture, as a token of the

innocency which, by God’s grace, in this holy sacrament of baptism, is

given unto thee; and for a sign, whereby thou art admonished, so long as

thou livest, to give thyself to innocence of living, that, after this

transitory life, thou mayest be partaker of the life everlasting. Amen.”

As soon as he had pronounced these words, he was to anoint the infant on

the head, saying, “Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

who hath regenerated thee by water and the Holy Ghost, and hath given

unto thee remission of all thy sins; vouchsafe to anoint thee with the

unction of his Holy Spirit, and bring thee to the inheritance of

everlasting life. Amen.” This was manifestly done in imitation of the

practice of the primitive Church.

The custom of sprinkling children, instead of dipping them in the font,

which at first was allowed in case of the weakness or sickness of the

infant, has so far prevailed, that immersion is at length almost

excluded. What principally tended to confirm the practice of affusion or

sprinkling, was, that several of our English divines, flying into

Germany and Switzerland, during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and

returning home when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with

them a great zeal for the Protestant Churches beyond sea where they had

been sheltered and received; and, having observed that at Geneva

(_Calvin, Instit._ lib. iv. c. 15) and some other places baptism was

administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the Church of

England a greater piece of service than by introducing a practice

dictated by so great an oracle as Calvin. This, together with the

coldness of our northern climate, was what contributed to banish

entirely the practice of dipping infants in the font.

Lay-baptism we find to have been permitted by both the Common Prayer

Books of King Edward, and that of Queen Elizabeth, when an infant is in

immediate danger of death, and a lawful minister cannot be had. This was

founded upon the mistaken notion of the impossibility of salvation

without the sacrament of baptism; but afterwards, when they came to have

clearer notions of the sacraments, it was unanimously resolved in a

convocation, held in the year 1575, that even private baptism, in a case

of necessity, was only to be administered by a lawful minister.—_Bp.

Gibson’s Codex_, tit. xviii. vol. i. ch. 9, p. 446.

It remains to be observed, that, by a provincial constitution, made in

the year 1236, (26th of Hen. III.,) neither the water, nor the vessel

containing it, which have been made use of in private baptism, are

afterwards to be applied to common uses: but, out of reverence to the

sacrament, the water is to be poured into the fire, or else carried into

the church and put into the font; and the vessel to be burnt, or else

appropriated to some use in the church. But no provision is made for the

disposition of the water used in the font at church. In the Greek

Church, particular care is taken that it be not thrown into the street

like common water, but poured into a hollow place under the altar,

(called θαλασσίδιον or χωνεῖον,) where it is soaked into the earth, or

finds a passage.—_Broughton. Bp. Gibson’s Codex_, tit. xviii. c. 2, vol.

i. p. 435. _Dr. Smith’s Account of the Gr. Church._

BAPTISM, ADULT. “It was thought convenient, that some prayers and

thanksgivings, fitted to special occasions, should be added;

particularly an office for the baptism of such as are of riper years;

which, although not so necessary when the former book was compiled, yet

by the growth of anabaptism, through the licentiousness of the late

times crept in amongst us, is now become necessary, and may be always

useful for the baptizing of natives in our plantations, and others

converted to the faith.”—_Preface to the Book of Common Prayer._

_Rubric._ “When any such persons of riper years are to be baptized,

timely notice shall be given to the bishop, or whom he shall appoint for

that purpose, a week before at the least, by the parents or some other

discreet persons; that so due care may be taken for their examination,

whether they be sufficiently instructed in the principles of the

Christian religion; and that they may be exhorted to prepare themselves

with prayers and fasting for the receiving of this holy sacrament. And

if they shall be found fit, then the godfathers and godmothers (the

people being assembled upon the Sunday or holy day appointed) shall be

ready to present them at the font, immediately after the second lesson,

either at morning or evening prayer, as the curate in his discretion

shall think fit. And it is expedient that every person thus baptized

should be confirmed by the bishop, so soon after his baptism as

conveniently may be; that so he may be admitted to the holy communion.”

BAPTISM, INFANT. _Article 27._ “The baptism of young children is in

anywise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the

institution of CHRIST.”

_Rubric._ “The curates of every parish shall often admonish the people,

that they defer not the baptism of their children longer than the first

or second Sunday next after their birth, or other holy day falling

between; unless upon a great and reasonable cause, to be approved by the

curate.”

The practice of infant baptism seems to be a necessary consequence of

the doctrine of original sin and of the grace of baptism. If it be only

by union with CHRIST that the children of Adam can be saved; and if, as

the apostle teaches, in baptism “we put on CHRIST,” then it was natural

for parents to ask for permission to bring their little ones to CHRIST,

that they might be partakers of the free grace that is offered to all;

but though offered to all, to be applied individually. It may be because

it is so necessary a consequence of the doctrine of original sin, that

the rite of infant baptism is not enjoined in Scripture. But though

there is no command in Scripture to baptize infants, and although for

the practice we must plead the tradition of the Church Universal, still

we may find a warrant in Scripture in favour of the traditional

practice. We find it generally stated that the apostles baptized whole

households, and CHRIST our SAVIOUR commanded them to baptize all

nations, of which infants form a considerable part. And in giving this

injunction, we may presume that he intended to _in_clude infants, from

the very fact of his not _ex_cluding them. For he was addressing Jews;

and when the Jews converted a heathen to faith in the GOD of Israel,

they were accustomed to baptize the convert, _together with all the

infants of his family_. And, consequently, when our LORD commanded

_Jews_, i.e. _men accustomed to this practice_, to baptize nations, the

fact that he did not positively _repel_ infants, _implied_ an injunction

to _baptize_ them; and when the HOLY SPIRIT records that the apostles,

in obedience to that injunction, baptized whole households, the argument

gains increased force. This is probably what St. Paul means, when, in

the seventh chapter of the First Corinthians, verse 14, he speaks of the

children of believers as being holy: they are so far holy, that they may

be brought to the sacrament of baptism. From the apostles has come down

the practice of baptizing _infants_, the Church requiring security,

through certain _sponsors_, that the children shall be brought up to

lead a godly and a Christian life. And by the early Christians the

practice was considered sufficiently sanctioned by the passage from St.

Mark, which is read in our baptismal office, in which we are told, that

the LORD JESUS CHRIST, having rebuked those that would have kept the

children from him, took them up in his arms and blessed them. He blessed

them, and his blessing must have conveyed grace to their souls;

therefore, of grace, children may be partakers. They may receive

spiritual life, though it may be long before that life develope itself;

and that life they may lose by sinning.

BAPTISM, LAY. We shall briefly state the history of lay baptism in our

Church both before and after the Reformation. In the “Laws

Ecclesiastical” of Edmund, king of England, A. D. 945, it is

stated:—“Women, when their time of child-bearing is near at hand, shall

have water ready, for baptizing the child in case of necessity.”

In the national synod under Otho, 1237, it is directed: “For cases of

necessity, the priests on Sundays shall frequently instruct their

parishioners in the form of baptism.” To which it is added, in the

Constitutions of Archbishop Peckham, in 1279, “Which form shall be thus:

I crysten thee in the name of the FADER, and of the SONE, and of the

HOLY GOSTE.”

In the Constitutions of the same archbishop, in 1281, it is ruled that

infants baptized by laymen or women (in imminent danger of death) shall

not be baptized again; and the priest shall afterwards supply the rest.

By the rubrics of the second and of the fifth of Edward VI. it was

ordered thus: “The pastors and curates shall often admonish the people,

that without great cause and necessity they baptize not children at home

in their houses; and when great need shall compel them so to do, that

then they minister it in this fashion:—First, let them that be present

call upon GOD for his grace, and say the LORD’S Prayer, if the time will

suffer; and then one of them shall name the child and dip him in the

water, or pour water upon him, saying these words, I baptize thee in the

name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.”

In the manuscript copy of the Articles made in convocation in the year

1575, the twelfth is, “Item, where some ambiguity and doubt hath arisen

among divers, by what persons private baptism is to be administered;

forasmuch as by the Book of Common Prayer allowed by the statute, the

bishop of the diocese is authorized to expound and resolve all such

doubts as shall arise, concerning the manner how to understand and to

execute the things contained in the said book; it is now, by the said

archbishop and bishops, expounded and resolved, and every of them doth

expound and resolve, that the said private baptism, in case of

necessity, is only to be ministered by a lawful minister or deacon

called to be present for that purpose, and by none other; and that every

bishop in his diocese shall take order that this exposition of the said

doubt shall be published in writing, before the first day of May next

coming, in every parish church of his diocese in this province; and

thereby all other persons shall be inhibited to intermeddle with the

ministering of baptism privately, being no part of their vocation.” This

article was not published in the printed copy; but whether on the same

account that the fifteenth article was left out, (namely, because

disapproved by the Crown,) does not certainly appear. However, the

ambiguity remained till the conference at Hampton Court, in which the

king said, that if baptism was termed private, because any but a lawful

minister might baptize, he utterly disliked it, and the point was then

debated; which debate ended in an order to the bishops to explain it, so

as to restrain it to a lawful minister. Accordingly, in the Book of

Common Prayer, which was set forth the same year, the alterations were

printed in the rubric thus:—“And also they shall warn them, that without

great cause they procure not their children to be baptized at home in

their houses. And when great need shall compel them so to do, then

baptism shall be administered on this fashion: First, let the lawful

minister and them that be present call upon GOD for his grace, and say

the LORD’S Prayer, if the time will suffer; and then the child being

named by some one that is present, the said minister shall dip it in the

water, or pour water upon it.” And other expressions, in other parts of

the service, which seemed before to admit of lay baptism, were so

turned, as expressly to exclude it.

BAPTISM, PRIVATE. _Rubric._ “The curates of every parish shall often

warn the people, that without great cause and necessity, they procure

not their children to be baptized at home in their houses.”

Canon 69. “If any minister being duly, without any manner of collusion,

informed of the weakness and danger of death of any infant unbaptized in

his parish, and thereupon desired to go or come to the place where the

said infant remaineth, to baptize the same, shall either wilfully refuse

so to do, or of purpose or of gross negligence shall so defer the time,

as when he might conveniently have resorted to the place, and have

baptized the said infant, it dieth through such his default unbaptized,

the said minister shall be suspended for three months, and before his

restitution shall acknowledge his fault, and promise before his ordinary

that he will not wittingly incur the like again. Provided, that where

there is a curate, or a substitute, this constitution shall not extend

to the parson or vicar himself, but to the curate or substitute

present.”

_Rubric._ “The child being named by some one that is present, the

minister shall pour water upon it.

“And let them not doubt, but that the child so baptized is lawfully and

sufficiently baptized, and ought not to be baptized again. Yet,

nevertheless, if the child which is after this sort baptized do

afterward live, it is expedient that it be brought into the church, to

the intent that the congregation may be certified of the true form of

baptism privately before administered to such child.”

BAPTISM, PUBLIC. At first baptism was administered publicly, as occasion

served, by rivers; afterwards the baptistery was built, at the entrance

of the church or very near it, which had a large basin in it, that held

the persons to be baptized, and they went down by steps into it.

Afterwards, when immersion came to be disused, fonts were set up at the

entrance of churches.

By the “Laws Ecclesiastical” of King Edmund, it is directed that there

shall be a font of stone, or other competent material, in every church;

which shall be decently covered and kept, and not converted to other

uses.

And by canon 81, There shall be a font of stone in every church and

chapel where baptism is to be administered; the same to be set in the

ancient usual places: in which only font the minister shall baptize

publicly.

The rubric directs that the people are to be admonished, that it is most

convenient that baptism shall not be administered but upon Sundays and

other holy days, when the most number of people come together; as well

for that the congregation there present may testify the receiving of

them that be newly baptized into the number of Christ’s Church, as also

because in the baptism of infants, every man present may be put in

remembrance of his own profession made to GOD in his baptism.

Nevertheless, if necessity so require, children may be baptized upon any

other day.

And by canon 68, No minister shall refuse or delay to christen any child

according to the form of the Book of Common Prayer, that is brought to

the church to him upon Sundays and holy days to be christened

(convenient warning being given him thereof before). And if he shall

refuse so to do, he shall be suspended by the bishop of the diocese from

his ministry by the space of three months.

The rubric also directs, that when there are children to be baptized,

the parents shall give knowledge thereof over-night, or in the morning

before the beginning of morning prayer, to the curate.

The rubric further directs, that there shall be for every male child to

be baptized two godfathers and one godmother; and for every female, one

godfather and two godmothers.

By the 29th canon it is related, that no parent shall be urged to be

present, nor admitted to answer as godfather for his own child: nor any

godfather or godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or

speech, than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf.

Neither shall any persons be admitted godfather or godmother to any

child at christening or confirmation, before the said person so

undertaking hath received the holy communion.

According to the rubric, the godfathers and godmothers, and the people

with the children, must be ready at the font, either immediately after

the last lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately after the last

lesson at evening prayer, as the curate by his discretion shall appoint.

The rubric appoints that the priest coming to the font, which is then to

be filled with pure water, shall perform the office of public baptism.

It may be here observed, that the questions in the office of the 2

Edward VI., “Dost thou renounce?” and so on, were put to the child, and

not to the godfathers and godmothers, which (with all due submission)

seems more applicable to the end of the institution; besides that it is

not consistent (as it seems) with the propriety of language, to say to

three persons collectively, “Dost _thou_ in the name of this child do

this or that?”

By a constitution of Archbishop Peckham, the ministers are to take care

not to permit wanton names, which being pronounced do sound to

lasciviousness, to be given to children baptized, especially of the

female sex; and if otherwise it be done, the same shall be changed by

the bishop at confirmation; which being so changed at confirmation (Lord

Coke says) shall be deemed the lawful name, though this appears to be no

longer the case. In the ancient offices of Confirmation, the bishop

pronounced the name of the child; and if the bishop did not approve of

the name, or the person to be confirmed, or his friends, desired it to

be altered, it might be done by the bishop’s then pronouncing a new

name; but by the form of the present liturgy, the bishop doth not

pronounce the name of the person to be confirmed, and therefore cannot

alter it.

The rubric goes on to direct, The priest, taking the child into his

hands, shall say to the godfathers and godmothers, “Name this child:”

and then naming it after them, (if they shall certify him that the child

may well endure it,) he shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily,

saying, “_N._ I baptize thee in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON,

and of the HOLY GHOST.” But if they certify that the child is weak, it

shall suffice to pour water upon it.

Here we may observe that the dipping by the office of the 2 Edward VI.

was not all over; but they first dipped the right side, then the left,

then the face towards the font.

The rubric directs that the minister shall sign the child with the sign

of the cross. And to take away all scruple concerning the same, the true

explication thereof, and the just reasons for retaining of this

ceremony, are set forth in the thirtieth canon. The substance of which

canon is this, that the first Christians gloried in the cross of CHRIST;

that the Scripture sets forth our whole redemption under the name of the

cross; that the sign of the cross was used by the first Christians in

all their actions, and especially in the baptizing of their children;

that the abuse of it by the Church of Rome does not take away the lawful

use of it; that the same has been approved by the reformed divines, with

sufficient cautions nevertheless against superstition in the use of it;

that it is no part of the substance of this sacrament, and that the

infant baptized is by virtue of baptism, before it be signed with the

sign of the cross, received into the congregation of CHRIST’S flock as a

perfect member thereof, and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the

cross; and therefore, that the same, being purged from all Popish

superstition and error, and reduced to its primary institution, upon

those rules of doctrine concerning things indifferent which are

consonant to the word of GOD and to the judgments of all the ancient

fathers, ought to be retained in the Church, considering that things of

themselves indifferent do, in some sort, alter their natures when they

become enjoined or prohibited by lawful authority.

The following is Dr. Comber’s analysis of our baptismal office:—The

first part of the office, or the preparation before baptism, concerns

either the child or the sureties. As to the child, we first inquire if

it want baptism; secondly, show the necessity of it in an exhortation;

thirdly, we pray it may be fitted for it in the two collects. First, the

priest asks if this child have been already baptized, because St. Paul

saith, “there is but one baptism” (Ephes. iv. 5); and as we are born, so

we are born again, but once. Secondly, the minister begins the

exhortation, showing, 1. what reason there is to baptize this child,

namely, because of its being born in original sin, (Psalm li. 5,) and by

consequence liable to condemnation (Rom. v. 12); the only way to free it

from which is baptizing it with water and the HOLY GHOST. (John iii. 5.)

And, 2. beseeching all present, upon this account, to pray to GOD, that,

while he baptizes this child with water, GOD will give it his Holy

Spirit, so as to make it a lively member of CHRIST’S Church, whereby it

may have a title to “remission of sins.” Thirdly, the two collects

follow, made by the priest and all the people for the child: the first

collect commemorates how GOD did typify this salvation, which he now

gives by baptism, in saving Noah and all his by water (1 Pet. iii. 21);

and by carrying the Israelites safe through the Red Sea. (1 Cor. x. 2.)

And it declares also how CHRIST himself, by being baptized, sanctified

water for remission of sin: and upon these grounds we pray that GOD will

by his Spirit cleanse and sanctify this child, that he may be delivered

from his wrath, saved in the ark of his Church, and so filled with grace

as to live holily here, and happily hereafter. The second collect, after

owning GOD’S power to help this child, and to raise him from the death

of sin to the life of righteousness, doth petition him to grant it may

receive remission and regeneration, pleading with GOD to grant this

request, by his promise to give to them that ask, that so this infant

may be spiritually cleansed by GOD’S grace in its baptism, and come at

last to his eternal kingdom, through CHRIST our LORD. Amen.

The next part of the preparation concerns the godfathers or sureties,

who are, 1. encouraged in the gospel and its application, with the

thanksgiving; 2. instructed in the preface before the covenant; 3.

engaged in the questions and answers. The Jews had sureties at

circumcision, who promised for the child till it came to age (Isaiah

viii. 2); and the primitive Christians had sponsors to engage for such

as were baptized, and since children cannot make a covenant themselves,

it is charity to appoint (as the laws of men do) others to do it for

them till they be of age; and this gives security to the Church, the

child shall not be an apostate; provides a monitor both for the child

and its parents, to mind them of this vow, and keep the memory of this

new birth, by giving the child new and spiritual relations of godfathers

and godmothers. Now to these the priest next addresseth, 1. in _the

Gospel_ (Mark x. 13–16); which shows how the Jews, believing that

CHRIST’S blessing would be very beneficial to young children, brought

them to him in their arms, and when the disciples checked them, CHRIST

first declares that infants, and such as were like them, had the only

right to the kingdom of heaven, and therefore they had good right to his

love and his blessing, and to all means which might bring them to it,

and accordingly he took them in his arms and blessed them. After this

follows the _explication_, and applying this gospel to the sureties; for

if they doubt, here they may see CHRIST’S love to infants, and their

right to heaven and to this means, so that they may firmly believe he

will pardon and sanctify this child, and grant it a title to his

kingdom; and that he is well pleased with them, for bringing this child

to his holy baptism; for he desires this infant, as well as we all, may

come to know and believe in him. Wherefore, thirdly, here is _a

thanksgiving_ to be offered up by all, beginning with praising GOD for

calling us into his Church, where we may know him and obtain the grace

to believe, it being very proper for us to bless GOD for our being

Christians, when a new Christian is to be made; and then follows a

prayer, that we who are Christians may grow in grace, and that this

infant may receive the Spirit in order to its regeneration and

salvation. After which form of devotion, fourthly, there is a _preface

to the covenant_, wherein the godfathers and godmothers are put in mind,

first, what hath been done already, namely, they have brought the child

to CHRIST, and begged of him in the collects to accept it, and CHRIST

hath showed them in the Gospel that the child is capable to receive, and

he willing to give it, salvation and the means thereof, upon the

conditions required of all Christians, that is, repentance, faith, and

new obedience. Secondly, therefore, they are required to engage in the

name of this child, till it come of age, that it shall perform these

conditions required on its part, that it may have a title to that which

CHRIST doth promise, and will certainly perform on his part. Fifthly,

the engagement itself follows, which is very necessary, since baptism is

a mutual covenant between GOD and man, and therefore, in the beginning

of Christianity, (when the Church consisted chiefly of such as were

converted from the Jews and Heathens, after they came to age,) the

parties baptized answered these very same questions, and entered into

these very engagements, for themselves; which infants (who need the

benefits of baptism as much as any) not being able to do, the Church

lends them the feet of others to bring them, and the tongues of others

to promise for them; and the priest stands in GOD’S stead to take this

security in his name; he “demands,” therefore, of the sureties, first,

if they in the name and stead of this child will renounce all sinful

compliances with the devil, the world, and the flesh, which tempt us to

all kinds of sin, and so are GOD’S enemies, and ours also, in so high a

measure, that unless we vow never to follow and be led by them, we

cannot be received into league and friendship with GOD: to this they

reply in the singular number, as if the child spake by them, “I renounce

them all.” Secondly, as Philip asked the eunuch if he did believe before

he baptized him, (Acts viii. 37,) so the priest asks if they believe all

the articles of the Christian faith, into which religion they are now to

be entered; and therefore they must engage to hold all the fundamental

principles thereof, revealed in Scripture and comprised in the Apostles’

Creed; and they are to answer, “All this I stedfastly believe.” Thirdly,

that it may appear to be their own free act to admit themselves into

this holy religion, they are asked if they will be baptized into this

faith, and they answer, “That is my desire;” for who would not desire to

be a child of GOD, a member of CHRIST, and an heir of heaven? But since

these benefits of baptism are promised only to them who live holily,

fourthly, it is demanded if they will keep GOD’S holy will and

commandments as long as they live, since they now take CHRIST for their

Lord and Master, and list themselves under his banner, and receive his

grace in this sacrament, to renew and strengthen them to keep this vow?

Upon these accounts they promise “they will” keep GOD’S commandments.

And now the covenant is made between GOD and this infant, he hath

promised it pardon, grace, and glory, and is willing to adopt it for his

own child: and this child, by its sureties, hath engaged to forsake all

evil ways, to believe all truth, and to practise all kind of

virtue.—_Dean Comber._

BAPTISM, REGISTRATION OF. When the minister has baptized the child he

has a further duty to perform, in making an entry thereof in the parish

register, which is a book in which formerly all christenings, marriages,

and burials were recorded, and the use of which is enforced both by the

canon law and by the statute.

The keeping of parochial registries of baptism, and also of burial, are,

so far as regards the duties of clergymen in that respect, regulated by

the statute 52 Geo. III. c. 146, whereby it is enacted that registers of

public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials, solemnized

according to the rites of our Church, shall be made and kept by the

rector or other the officiating minister of every parish or chapelry, on

books of parchment, or durable paper, to be provided by the king’s

printer, at the expense of the parishes; and the particular form of the

book, and of the manner of making the entries, are directed according to

a form in the schedule to the act.

The register book is to be deemed the property of the parish; the

custody of it is to be in the rector or other officiating minister, by

whom it is to be kept in an iron chest provided by the parish, either in

his own house, if he resides in the parish, or in the church, and the

book is to be taken from the chest only for the purpose of making

entries, being produced when necessary in evidence, or for some of the

purposes mentioned in the act.

The act 6 & 7 W. IV., called the General Registration Act, provides that

nothing therein contained shall affect the registration of baptisms or

burials, as now by law established; so that whatever any parishioner,

incumbent, or curate had respectively a right to insist upon, with

regard to the regulation of baptisms, may be equally insisted upon by

either party now. There are, however, enactments of 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 86,

which are to be observed in addition to those of 52 Geo. III. c. 146.

If any child born in England, whose birth shall have been registered

according to the provisions of 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 86, shall, within six

calendar months after it has been so registered, have any name given to

it in baptism, the parents or persons so procuring such name to be given

may, within seven days afterwards, procure and deliver to the registrar

a certificate according to a prescribed form, signed by the minister who

shall have performed the rite of baptism, which certificate the minister

is required to deliver immediately after the baptism, whenever it shall

then be demanded, on payment of the fee of 1_s._, which he shall be

entitled to receive for the same; and the registrar, or superintendant

registrar, upon the receipt of that certificate, and upon payment of a

fee of 1_s._, shall, without any erasure of the original entry,

forthwith register that the child was baptized by such a name; and such

registrar, or superintendant registrar, shall thereupon certify upon the

certificate the additional entry so made, and forthwith send the

certificate through the post to the registrar-general. Every rector,

&c., and every registrar, &c., who shall have the keeping for the time

being of any register book, shall, at all reasonable times, allow

searches to be made, and shall give a copy certified under his hand of

any entry or entries in the same, upon payment of a fee of 1_s._, for

every search extending over a period of not more than one year, and

6_d._ additional for every half year, and 2_s._ 6_d._ for every single

certificate.

BAPTISTERY. Properly a separate, or special, building for the

administration of holy baptism. In this sense, a baptistery, originally

intended and used for the purpose, does not occur in England; for that

which is called the baptistery at Canterbury, and contains the font, was

never so called, or so furnished, till the last century. The remains of

an ancient baptistery chapel have lately been discovered in Ely

cathedral; and the chapel is now in the course of restoration.

One of the most ancient baptisteries now existing is that of St. John

Lateran at Rome, erected by Constantine. It is a detached building, and

octagonal. In the centre is a large font of green basalt, into which the

persons to be baptized descended by the four steps which still remain.

It has two side chapels or exedræ. (See _Eustace, Classical Tour in

Italy_.)

Detached baptisteries still exist in many cities in Italy: the most

famous are those at Florence and Pisa. These served for the whole city;

anciently no town churches but the cathedral church having fonts. (See

_Bingham_, book viii. ch. 7, § 6.)

Sometimes the canopy to the font grows to so great amplitude as to be

supported by its own pillars, and to receive persons within it at the

baptismal service, and then it may be called a baptistery. This is the

case at Trunch and at Aylsham, both in Norfolk. (See _Font_.)

BAPTISTS. A name improperly assumed by those who deny the validity of

infant baptism, defer the baptism of their own children, and admit

proselytes into their community by a second washing. They are more

properly called Anabaptists, (see _Anabaptists_,) from their baptizing

again; or Antipædobaptists, from their denying the validity of infant

baptism. Their assumed name of Baptists would intimate that they alone

truly baptize, and it ought not therefore to be allowed them. We ought

no more to call them _Baptists_, than to call Socinians _Unitarians_, or

Papists _Catholics_, as if we did not hold the Unity of the GODHEAD, and

Socinians were distinguished from us by that article; or as if the

Papists, and not we, were _catholic_ or _true_ Christians.

The following is the account of the denomination given by Burder. The

members of this denomination are distinguished from all other professing

Christians by their opinions respecting the ordinance of Christian

baptism. Conceiving that positive institutions cannot be established by

analogical reasoning, but depend on the will of the SAVIOUR revealed in

express precepts, and that apostolical example illustrative of this is

the rule of duty, they differ from their Christian brethren with regard

both to the subjects and the mode of baptism.

With respect to the subjects, from the command which CHRIST gave after

his resurrection, and in which baptism is mentioned as consequent to

faith in the gospel, they conceive them to be those, and those only, who

believe what the apostles were then enjoined to preach.

With respect to the mode, they affirm that, instead of sprinkling or

pouring, the person ought to be immersed in the water, referring to the

primitive practice, and observing that the baptizer as well as the

baptized having gone down into the water, the latter is baptized in it,

and both come up out of it. They say, that John baptized in the Jordan,

and that JESUS, after being baptized, came up out of it. Believers are

said also to be “buried with CHRIST by baptism into death, wherein also

they are risen with him;” and the Baptists insist that this is a

doctrinal allusion incompatible with any other mode.

But they say that their views of this institution are much more

confirmed, and may be better understood, by studying its nature and

import. They consider it as an impressive emblem of that by which their

sins are remitted or washed away, and of that on account of which the

HOLY SPIRIT is given to those who obey the Messiah. In other words, they

view Christian baptism as a figurative representation of that which the

gospel of JESUS is in testimony. To this the mind of the baptized is

therefore naturally led, while spectators are to consider him as

professing his faith in the gospel, and his subjection to the REDEEMER.

The Baptists, therefore, would say, that none ought to be baptized

except those who seem to believe this gospel; and that immersion is not

properly a mode of baptism, but baptism itself.

Thus the English and most foreign Baptists consider a personal

profession of faith, and an immersion in water, as essential to baptism.

The profession of faith is generally made before the congregation, at a

church-meeting. On these occasions some have a creed, to which they

expect the candidate to assent, and to give a circumstantial account of

his conversion; but others require only a profession of his faith as a

Christian. The former generally consider baptism as an ordinance, which

initiates persons into a particular church; and they say that, without

breach of Christian liberty, they have a right to expect an agreement in

articles of faith in their own societies. The latter think that baptism

initiates merely into a profession of the Christian religion, and

therefore say that they have no right to require an assent to their

creed from such as do not intend to join their communion; and, in

support of their opinion, they quote the baptism of the eunuch, in the

eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

The Baptists are divided into the _General_, who are Arminians, and the

_Particular_, who are Calvinists. Some of both classes allow mixed

communion, by which is understood, that those who have not been baptized

by immersion on the profession of their faith, (but in their infancy,

which they themselves deem valid,) may sit down at the LORD’S table

along with those who have been thus baptized. This has given rise to

much controversy on the subject.

Some of both classes of Baptists are, at the same time, _Sabbatarians_,

and, with the Jews, observe the seventh day of the week as the sabbath.

This has been adopted by them from a persuasion that, all the ten

commandments are in their nature strictly moral, and that the observance

of the seventh day was never abrogated or repealed by our SAVIOUR or his

apostles.

In discipline, the Baptists differ little from the Independents. In

Scotland they have some peculiarities, not necessary to notice.

BARDESANISTS. Christian heretics in the East, and the followers of

Bardesanes, who lived in Mesopotamia in the second century, and was

first the disciple of Valentinus, but quitted that heresy, and wrote not

only against it, but against the Marcionite and other heresies of his

time; he afterwards unhappily fell into the errors he had before

refuted. The Bardesanists differed from the Catholic Church on three

points:—1. They held the devil to be a self-existent, independent being.

2. They taught that our LORD was not born of a woman, but brought his

body with him from heaven. 3. They denied the resurrection of the

body.—_Euseb. Præp. Evang._ lib. vi. c. 9. _Epiph. Hæres._ 5, 6.

_Origen, contr. Marcion_, § 3.

BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF. The Epistle of St. Barnabas is published by

Archbishop Wake, among his translations of the works of the Apostolical

Fathers; and in the preliminary dissertation the reader will find the

arguments which are adduced to prove this to be the work of St.

Barnabas. By others it is referred to the second century, and is

supposed to be the work of a converted Alexandrian Jew. Du Pin speaks of

it as a work full of edification for the Church, though not canonical.

By Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, by Eusebius and St. Jerome, the work

is attributed to St. Barnabas, though they declare that it ought not to

be esteemed of the same authority as the canonical books, “because,

although it really belongs to St. Barnabas, yet it is not generally

received by the whole Catholic Church.”—_Wake. Du Pin._

BARNABAS’ DAY (ST.). 11th of June. This apostle was born in the island

of Cyprus, and was descended from parents of the house of Levi. He

became a student of the Jewish law, under Gamaliel, who was also the

instructor of St. Paul. St. Barnabas was one of those who freely gave up

his worldly goods into the common stock, which was voluntarily formed by

the earliest converts to Christianity. After the conversion of St. Paul,

St. Barnabas had the distinguished honour of introducing him into the

society of the apostles; and was afterwards his fellow-labourer in many

places, especially at Antioch, where the name of Christian was first

assumed by the followers of JESUS. It has been said that St. Barnabas

founded the Church of Milan, and that he was stoned to death at Salamis,

in Cyprus; but these accounts are very uncertain. For the Epistle

ascribed to him, see the preceding article.

BARNABITES. Called canons regular of St. Paul: an order of Romish monks

approved by Pope Clement VII. and Pope Paul III. There have been several

learned men of the order, and they have several monasteries in France,

Italy, and Savoy: they call them by the name of canons of St. Paul,

because their first founders had their denomination from their reading

St. Paul’s Epistles; and they are named Barnabites for their particular

devotion for St. Barnabas.—_Du Pin._

BARSANIANS, or SEMIDULITES. Heretics that began to appear in the sixth

age; they maintained the errors of the Gradanaites, and made their

sacrifices consist in taking wheat flour on the top of their finger, and

carrying it to their mouths.

BARTHOLOMEW’S DAY (ST.). 24th of August. The day appointed for the

commemoration of this apostle. In the catalogue of the apostles, which

is given by the first three of the evangelists, Bartholomew makes one of

the number. St. John, however, not mentioning him, and recording several

things of another disciple, whom he calls Nathanael, and who is not

named by the other evangelists, this has occasioned many to be of the

opinion that Bartholomew and Nathanael were the same person. St.

Bartholomew is said to have preached the gospel in the Greater Armenia,

and to have converted the Lycaonians to Christianity. It is also

believed that he carried the gospel into India: and as there is no

record of his return, it is not improbable that he suffered martyrdom in

that country.

St. Bartholomew’s day is distinguished in history on account of that

horrid and atrocious carnage, called the _Parisian Massacre_. This

shocking scene of religious phrensy was marked with such barbarity as

would exceed all belief, if it were not attested by authentic evidence.

In 1572, in the reign of Charles IX., numbers of the principal

Protestants were invited to Paris, under a solemn oath of safety, to

celebrate the marriage of the king of Navarre with the sister of the

French king. The queen dowager of Navarre, a zealous Protestant, was

poisoned by a pair of gloves before the marriage was solemnized. On the

24th of August, being St. Bartholomew’s day, about morning twilight, the

massacre commenced on the tolling of a bell of the church of St. Germain

l’Auxerrois. The Admiral Coligni was basely murdered in his own house,

and then thrown out of a window, to gratify the malice of the Duke of

Guise. His head was afterwards cut off, and sent to the king and the

queen mother; and his body, after a thousand indignities offered to it,

was hung up by the feet upon a gibbet. The murderers then ravaged the

whole city of Paris, and put to death more than ten thousand persons of

all ranks. “This,” says Thuanus, “was a horrible scene. The very streets

and passages resounded with the groans of the dying, and of those who

were about to be murdered. The bodies of the slain were thrown out of

the windows, and with them the courts and chambers of the houses were

filled. The dead bodies of others were dragged through the streets, and

the blood flowed down the channels in such torrents, that it seemed to

empty itself into the neighbouring river. In short, an innumerable

multitude of men, women with child, maidens, and children, were involved

in one common destruction; and all the gates and entrances to the king’s

palace were besmeared with blood. From Paris, the massacre spread

throughout the kingdom. In the city of Meaux, the Papists threw into

gaol more than two hundred persons; and after they had ravished and

killed a great number of women, and plundered the houses of the

Protestants, they executed their fury on those whom they had imprisoned,

whom they killed in cold blood, and whose bodies were thrown into

ditches, and into the river Maine. At Orleans they murdered more than

five hundred men, women, and children, and enriched themselves with the

plunder of their property. Similar cruelties were exercised at Angers,

Troyes, Bourges, La Charité, and especially at Lyons, where they

inhumanly destroyed more than eight hundred Protestants, whose bodies

were dragged through the streets and thrown half dead into the river. It

would be endless to mention the butcheries committed at Valence, Roanne,

Rouen, &c. It is asserted that, on this dreadful occasion, more than

thirty thousand persons were put to death. This atrocious massacre met

with the deliberate approbation of the pope and the authorities of the

Romish Church, and must convince every thinking man that resistance to

Popish aggression is a work of Christian charity.

BARUCH (THE PROPHECY OF). One of the apocryphal books, subjoined to the

canon of the Old Testament. Baruch was the son of Neriah, who was the

disciple and amanuensis of the prophet Jeremiah. It has been reckoned

part of Jeremiah’s prophecy, and is often cited by the ancient fathers

as such. Josephus tells us, Baruch was descended of a noble family; and

it is said, in the book itself, that he wrote this prophecy at Babylon;

but at what time is uncertain.—_Clem. Alexand. Pædag._ ch. 10. _Cyprian.

de Testimon. ad Quirinum_, lib. ii.

The subject of it is an epistle sent, or feigned to be sent, by king

Jehoiakim, and the Jews in captivity with him at Babylon, to their

brethren the Jews, who were left behind in the land of Judea, and in

Jerusalem: there is prefixed an historical Preface, (_Pref. to the Book

of Baruch_,) which relates, that Baruch, being then at Babylon, did, by

the appointment of the king and the Jews, and in their name, draw up

this epistle, and afterwards read it to them for their approbation;

after which it was sent to Jerusalem, with a collection of money, to

Joachim the high priest, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, and to

the priests, and to all the people, to buy therewith burnt-offerings,

and sin-offerings, and incense, &c.

It is difficult to determine in what language this prophecy was

originally written. There are extant three copies of it; one in Greek,

the other two in Syriac; but which of these, or whether any one of them,

be the original, is uncertain.—_Hieron. in Præfat. ad Jerem._

The Jews rejected this book, because it did not appear to have been

written in Hebrew; nor is it in the catalogue of sacred books, given us

by Origen, Hilary, Ruffinus, and others. But in the Council of Laodicea,

in St. Cyril, Epiphanius, and Athanasius, it is joined with the prophecy

of Jeremiah.

BASILIAN MONKS. Monks of the order of St. Basil, who lived in the fourth

century. St. Basil, having retired into a desert in the province of

Pontus, founded a monastery for the convenience of himself and his

numerous followers; and for the better regulation of this new society,

it is said that he drew up in writing certain rules which he wished them

to observe, though some think that he did not compose these rules. This

new order soon spread over all the East, and after some time passed into

the West. Some authors pretend that St. Basil saw himself the spiritual

father of more than 90,000 monks in the East only; but this order, which

flourished during more than three centuries, was considerably diminished

by heresy, schism, and a change of empire. They also say, that it has

produced 14 popes, 1805 bishops, 3010 abbots, and 11,085 martyrs. This

order also boasts of several emperors, kings, and princes, who have

embraced its rule.—_Tillemont, Hist. Eccles._, tom. ix. The order of St.

Basil prevails almost exclusively in the orthodox Greek Churches.

BASILICA. The halls of justice and of other public business among the

Romans were thus called; and many of them, when converted into Christian

churches, retained the same name. The general ground-plan of the

basilica was also frequently retained in the erection of a church. The

basilicas terminated with a conchoidal recess, or apsis, (see _Apse_,)

where the prætor and magistrates sat: beneath this was a transverse hall

or gallery, the origin of the transept, and below was the great hall

with its side passages, afterwards called the nave and aisles.

The bishop of Rome had seven cathedrals called Basilicæ. Six of these

were erected or converted into churches by Constantine, viz. St. John

Lateran, (the regular cathedral of Rome,) the ancient church of St.

Peter, on the Vatican Hill, St. Sebastian, St. Laurence, the Holy Cross,

St. Mary the Greater; and one by Theodosius, viz. St. Paul. There are

other very ancient churches in Rome, basilicas in form and name, but not

cathedrals; for example, St. Clement’s church, supposed to have been

originally the house of the apostolical bishop of that name, and the

most ancient existing church in the world. Several Italian churches are

called Basilicas; at Milan especially; often more than one in a city.

(See _Cathedrals_.)—_Jebb._

It is sometimes said, but without any certain foundation, that some of

the churches in England with circular apsidal terminations of the

chancel, (such as Kilpeck and Steetly,) were originally Roman basilicas.

They rather derive their form from the Oriental country churches, which

are uniformly apsidal. The most that can be said of them is, that they

do, in some respects, resemble the basilicas in arrangement. But as to

the cathedrals of England, the case is different: and since old Saxon or

Norman churches were unquestionably debasements of the Roman style in

their architectural features, it is possible that they derived from Rome

the characteristics uniformly observed in the old basilicas. The

conversion of the apses into sepulchral chapels for shrines, as at

Westminster and Canterbury, as superstition increased, destroyed the

ancient arrangements.—_Jebb._

BASILIDIANS. A sect of the Gnostic heretics, the followers of Basilides,

who taught that from the Unborn FATHER was born his Mind, and from him

the WORD, from him Understanding (φρόνησις), from him Wisdom and Power,

and from them Excellencies, and Princes, and Angels, who made a heaven.

He then introduced a successive series of angelic beings, each set

derived from the preceding one, to the number of 365, and each the

author of their own peculiar heaven. To all these angels and heavens he

gave names, and assigned the local situations of the heavens. The first

of them is called Abraxas, a mystical name, containing in it the number

365: the last and lowest is the one which we see; the creators of which

made this world, and divided its parts and nations amongst them. In this

division the Jewish nation came to the share of the prince of the

angels; and as he wished to bring all other nations into subjection to

his favourite nation, the other angelic princes and their nations

resisted him and his nation. The Supreme FATHER, seeing this state of

things, sent his first-begotten MIND, who is also called CHRIST, to

deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the creators.

He accordingly appeared to mankind as a man, and wrought mighty deeds.

He did not, however, really suffer, but changed forms with Simon of

Cyrene, and stood by laughing, while Simon suffered; and afterwards,

being himself incorporeal, ascended into heaven. Building upon this

transformation, Basilides taught his disciples that they might at all

times deny him that was crucified, and that they alone who did so

understood the providential dealings of the MOST HIGH, and by that

knowledge were freed from the power of the angels, whilst those who

confessed him remained under their power. Like Saturninus, however, but

in other words, he asserted that the soul alone was capable of

salvation, but the body necessarily perishable. He taught, moreover,

that they who knew his whole system, and could recount the names of the

angels, &c., were invisible to them all, and could pass through and see

them, without being seen in return; that they ought likewise to keep

themselves individually and personally unknown to common men, and even

to deny that they are what they are; that they should assert themselves

to be neither Jews nor Christians, and by no means reveal their

mysteries.—_Epiph. Hæres._ xxiv. c. 1. _Cave, Hist. Liter. Sæc.

Gnosticum_.

BASON (or BASIN) [so spelt in the sealed books] FOR THE OFFERTORY.

“Whilst the sentences for the Offertory are in reading, the deacons,

churchwardens, and other fit persons appointed for that purpose, shall

receive the alms for the poor, and _other devotions_ of the people, in a

decent bason, to be provided by the parish for that purpose.”—_Rubric._

It is clear from this expression, “other devotions,” that our reformers

did not intend to interfere with the ancient destination of alms in the

holy communion; but that they intended that all our gifts, whether for

the relief of the poor—to which indeed the Church assigns the first

place—or for any other good purpose, should be made as an offering to

GOD; the word _devotions_ signifying an act of giving up and dedicating

to Almighty GOD, and accompanied with prayer. In Exeter cathedral, and

others as we believe, the alms are still apportioned to these three

purposes,—relief of the poor, support of the fabric of the church, and

of the clergy. To this latter use in the early Church they were almost

exclusively devoted, the clergy being the chief almoners for the poor,

as the Church by her rightful office now is. It is often objected to

giving largely in the Offertory that there are now poor laws; but surely

the laws of the state should not cramp the free-will offerings of

CHRIST’S people. Is it too much to make the Church the steward of our

offerings for the cause of CHRIST? It were much to be wished that all

gifts were again made through this quiet and authorized channel. It is

quite within the province of the donor to specify the object on which he

wishes the gift to be expended, and the clergy will gladly aid the

people in obedience to their holy mother the Church.

BATH-KOL, or BATH-COL, signifies _Daughter of the Voice_. It is a name

by which the Jewish writers distinguish what they call a revelation from

GOD, after verbal prophecy had ceased in Israel, that is, after the

prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The generality of their

traditions and customs are founded on this Bath-Kol. They pretend, that

GOD revealed them to their elders, not by prophecy, but by secret

inspiration, or tradition: and this they call the Daughter of the Voice.

The Bath-Kol, as Dr. Prideaux shows, was a fantastical way of

divination, invented by the Jews, like the _Sortes Virgilianæ_ among the

heathens. With the heathen, the words dipt at, in opening the works of

Virgil, were the oracle by which they prognosticated those future events

of which they desired to be informed. In like manner by the Jews, when

they appealed to Bath-Kol, the next words which they heard were

considered as the desired oracle. Some Christians, when Christianity

began to be corrupted, used the Scriptures in the same manner as the

heathens employed the works of Virgil.

BATTLE, or more properly BATTEL, _Wager of_. One of the forms of ordeal,

or appeal to the judgment of GOD in the old Norman courts of this

kingdom. (See _Ordeal_.) In cases of murder, and some others, when the

evidence against the accused did not amount to positive proof, he was

allowed to assert his innocence by this appeal. If a prosecutor

appeared, before he could put in his charge, it was necessary, in cases

of murder, that he should prove himself to be of the blood of the

deceased. In cases of homicide, that he was allied to the slain as a

relation, or vassal, or lord, and could speak of the death on the

testimony of his own senses. The accused might then plead not guilty,

and, at his option, throw down his glove, and declare his readiness to

defend his innocence with his body. If the appellant took up the glove,

and professed himself willing to prove the charge in the same manner,

the judges, unless the guilt or innocence of the accused were evident,

proceeded to award a trial by battle. The appellee, with the book of the

Gospels in his right hand, and the right hand of his adversary in his

left, took the following oath: “Hear me, thou whom I hold by the right

hand, I am not guilty of the felony with which thou hast charged me. So

help me GOD and HIS saints. And this will I defend with my body against

thee, as this court shall award.” Then exchanging hands, and taking the

book, the appellant swore, “Hear me, thou whom I hold by the hand. Thou

art perjured, because thou art guilty. So help me GOD and HIS saints.

And this will I prove against thee with my body, as this court shall

award.” On the day appointed by the court, the two combatants were led

to battle. Each had his head, arms, and legs bare, was protected by a

square target of leather, and employed as a weapon a wooden stave one

ell in length, and turned at the end. If the appellee was unwilling to

fight, or in the course of the day was unable to continue the combat, he

was immediately hanged, or condemned to forfeit his property, and lose

his members. If he slew the appellant, or forced him to call out

“Craven,” or protracted the fight till the stars appeared in the

evening, he was acquitted. Nor did his recreant adversary escape

punishment. If he survived the combat, he was fined sixty shillings, was

declared infamous, and stript of all the privileges of a freeman.

In the court of chivalry the proceedings were different. When the cause

could not be decided on the evidence of witnesses, or the authority of

documents, the constable and mareschal required pledges from the two

parties, and appointed the time of battle, the place, and the weapons,—a

long sword, a short sword, and a dagger; but allowed the combatants to

provide themselves with defensive armour according to their own choice.

A spot of dry and even ground, sixty paces in length and forty in

breadth, was enclosed with stakes seven feet high, around which were

placed the serjeants-at-arms, with other officers, to keep silence and

order among the spectators. The combatants entered at opposite gates;

the appellant at the east, the defendant at the west end of the lists:

and each severally swore that his former allegations and answers were

true; that he had no weapons but those allotted by the court; that he

wore no charms about him; and that he placed his whole confidence on

GOD, on the goodness of his cause, and on his own prowess. Then taking

each other by the hand, the appellant swore that he would do his best to

slay his adversary, or compel him to acknowledge his guilt: the

defendant, that he would exert all his powers to prove his own

innocence. When they had been separately conducted to the gates at which

they entered, the constable, sitting at the foot of the throne,

exclaimed thrice, “Let them go,” adding to the third exclamation, “and

do their duty.” The battle immediately began: if the king interposed,

and took the quarrel into his own hands, the combatants were separated

by the officers with their wands, and then led by the constable and

mareschal to one of the gates, through which they were careful to pass

at the same moment, as it was deemed a disgrace to be the first to leave

the place of combat. If either party was killed, or cried “Craven,” he

was stripped of his armour on the spot where he lay, was dragged by

horses out of the lists, through a passage opened in one of the angles,

and was immediately hanged or beheaded in presence of the mareschal.

Trial by battle was used not only in military and criminal cases, but

also in one kind of civil action, namely, in writs of right, which were

not to determine the _jus possessionis_, but the less obvious and more

profound question of the _jus proprietatis_. In the simplicity of

ancient times, it was thought not unreasonable that a matter of such

difficulty should be left to the decision of Providence by the wager of

battle. In this case the battle was waged by champions, because, in

civil actions, if any party to the suit dies, the suit must abate, or

end, and therefore no judgment could be given.

The last trial by battle that was waged in the court of Common Pleas at

Westminster was in the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1571,

as reported by Sir James Dyer; and was held in Tothill Fields “non sine

magnâ juris consultorum perturbatione.” There was afterwards one in the

court of Chivalry in 1631, and another in the county palatine of Durham

in 1628.

The Wager of Battle was accounted obsolete, until it was unexpectedly

demanded and admitted in 1817, in a case of supposed murder; and it has

since been abolished by act of parliament, 59 George III. c. 46.

BAY. (More anciently _Severy_.) One whole compartment of a building. As

the whole structure consists of a repetition of bays, the description of

one bay comprises most of the terms used in architectural nomenclature.

The accompanying block figures are purposely composed of discordant

parts, to comprise the greater number of terms.

[Illustration]

EXTERIOR.

A. Aisle.

I. Basement.

II. Parapet.

_a._ Corbel table.

_b._ Cornice.

_c._ Gurgoyle.

III. Buttress.

_d._ Pedimental set-off.

_e._ Plain set-off.

_f._ Finial.

_g._ Flying buttress, or arch-buttress.

IV. Aisle roof.

C. Clerestory.

INTERIOR.

A. Aisle.

V. Pier.

_h._ Capital.

_i._ Shaft.

_k._ Base.

_l._ Band.

VI. Pier arch.

_m._ Spandril.

VII. Vaulting shaft.

_n._ Corbel.

_o._ Capital.

B. Triforium.

VIII. Triforium arcade.

_p._ Blank arches.

_q._ Pierced arches.

C. Clerestory.

D. Vault.

_r._ Groining ribs.

_s._ Bosses.

COMMON TO EXTERIOR & INTERIOR.

E. Aisle windows.

_t._ Jamb shafts.

_u._ Tracery (Perpendicular).

_v._ Mullions.

_w._ Transom.

_x._ Batement lights.

F. Clerestory windows.

_y._ Tracery (Geometrical).

_z._ Cusping or foliation.

_aa._ Tracery (Flowing).

_bb._ Hood, in the exterior more correctly dripstone.

_cc._ Corbel, or label.

DECORATIONS COMMON TO BOTH.

1. Arcading (Norman to Decorated.)

2. Panelling (Perpendicular).

3. Niche.

4. Panel.

5. String.

BEADS, or BEDES. A word of Saxon origin, which properly signifies

_prayers_; hence _Bidding the Bedes_ meant _desiring the prayers_ of the

congregation, and from the forms used for this purpose before the

Reformation is derived the _Bidding of prayer_, prescribed by the

English canons of 1603. (See _Bidding Prayer_.) From denoting the

prayers themselves, the word came to mean the little balls used by the

Romanists in rehearsing and numbering their Ave-marias and Paternosters.

(See _Rosary_.) A similar practice prevails among the dervises and other

religious persons throughout the East, as well Mahometans as Buddhists

and other heathens. The ancient form of the Bedes, or Bidding Prayer, is

given in the Appendix to Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. No. 54, which

shows that our present Bidding Prayer was founded on that model.

BEATIFICATION. (See _Canonization_.) In the Romish Church, the act by

which the pope declares a person happy after death. Beatification

differs from canonization. In the former the pope does not act as a

judge in determining the state of the beatified, but only grants a

privilege to certain persons to honour him by a particular religious

worship, without incurring the penalty of superstitious worshippers. In

canonization, the pope blasphemously speaks as a judge, and determines,

_ex cathedrâ_, on the state of the canonized. It is remarkable, that

particular orders of monks assume to themselves the power of

beatification.

BEDDERN, BEDERNA. The name still retained of the vicar’s college at

York, and of the old collegiate building at Beverley. Query, whether it

may be somewhat the same as _Bedehouse_, i. e. an hospital?—_Jebb._

BEGUINES. A congregation of nuns, founded either by St. Begghe, duchess

of Brabant, in the seventh century, or by Lambert le Begue, a priest and

native of Liege, who lived in the twelfth century. They were established

first at Liege, and afterwards at Nivelle, in 1207, or, as some say, in

1226. From this last settlement sprang the great number of Beguinages,

which are spread over all Flanders, and which have passed from Flanders

into Germany. In the latter country, some of them fell into extravagant

errors, and persuaded themselves that it was possible in the present

life to attain to the highest perfection, even to impeccability, and a

clear view of GOD, and in short, to so eminent a degree of

contemplation, that, after this, there was no necessity of submitting to

the laws of mortal men, civil or ecclesiastical. The Council of Vienne,

in 1311, condemned these errors, but permitted those who continued in

the true faith to live in chastity and penitence, either with or without

vows. There still subsist many communities of Beguines in

Flanders.—_Hist. des Ord. Relig._ viii. c. i.

BEL AND THE DRAGON (THE HISTORY OF). An apocryphal and uncanonical book

of Scripture. It was always rejected by the Jewish Church, and is extant

neither in the Hebrew nor the Chaldee language, nor is there any proof

that it ever was so. St. Jerome gives it no better title than “the fable

of Bel and the Dragon.” It is, however, permitted to be read, as well as

the other apocryphal writings, for the instruction and improvement of

manners.

Selden (_De Diis Syris, Syntagma_ ii. cap. 17) thinks, this little

history ought rather to be considered as a sacred poem or fiction, than

a true account. As to the Dragon, he observes, that serpents

(_dracones_) made a part of the hidden mysteries of the Pagan religion;

as appears from Clemens Alexandrinus, Julius Firmicus, Justin Martyr,

and others. And Aristotle relates, that, in Mesopotamia, there were

serpents which would not hurt the natives of the country, and infested

only strangers. Whence it is not improbable that both the Mesopotamians

themselves and the neighbouring people might worship a serpent, the

former to avert the evil arising from those reptiles, the latter out of

a principle of gratitude. But of this there is no clear proof, nor is it

certain that the Babylonians worshipped a dragon or serpent.—_Aristot._

περὶ θαυμασιων ἀκουσματων.

BELFRY. The place where the bells are hung; sometimes being a small arch

placed on the gable of the church, sometimes a tower or turret. The

belfries were originally detached from the church, as may be still seen

in many places in Italy. Instances of this have been known in England,

as at Chichester, and at Salisbury (the belfry in the latter place was

destroyed some years ago). The great central towers of our cathedrals

and abbeys were not originally constructed for bells, but for

_lanterns_, to give light to the central portion of the church. The

bells were contained in the towers, or turrets, at the west end, or at

the angles of the church. Many churches had more than one bell tower. In

Canterbury cathedral the ring of bells is contained in the south-western

tower; the small bell, or Bell-Hurry, which is rung just before the

service, is placed in the great central tower.

BELIEVERS (πιστοὶ, or _Faithful_). A name given to the baptized in the

early Church, as distinguished from the _Catechumens_. The believer was

admitted to all the rites of Divine worship, and instructed in all the

mysteries of the Christian religion.—_Bingham._

BELLS. Bells of a small size are very ancient, but larger ones are of a

much later date. The lower part of the blue robe worn by the Jewish high

priest was adorned with pomegranates and gold bells. The kings of Persia

are said to have had the hem of their robes adorned in like manner. The

high priest probably gave notice to the people, and also desired

permission to enter the sanctuary, by the sound of these bells, and by

so doing escaped the punishment of death annexed to an indecent

intrusion.

On the origin of church bells, Mr. Whitaker, in his “History of

Manchester,” observes, that bells being used, among other purposes, by

the Romans, to signify the times of bathing, were naturally applied by

the Christians of Italy to denote the hours of devotion, and summon the

people to church.

“Bells,” says Nicholls, “were not in use in the first ages of

Christianity. For, before the Christians received countenance from the

civil power, they were called together by a messenger, who went about

from house to house, some time before the hour the congregation met.

After this they made use of a sounding plank hanging by a chain, and

struck with a hammer. The precise time when bells first came in use is

not known. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, in Campania, in order to give

notice to the most remote inhabitants when prayers began, hung up a

large brass vessel, which, when struck upon by a hammer, gave such a

sound as he desired for his purpose. This was about the year 420. Hence

the two Latin names for a great bell—_Nola_, from the town; and

_Campana_, from the country where they were first used.”

But, whatever may be the connexion of bells with the city of Nola, there

is no ground for referring the first use of them to Paulinus; Bingham

pronounces the opinion to be “certainly a vulgar error.” Others say they

took the latter of these names, not from their being invented in

Campania, but because it was there the manner of hanging and balancing

them, now in use, was first practised; at least that they were hung on

the model of a sort of balance invented or used in Campania.

The Greek Christians are usually said to have been unacquainted with

bells till the ninth century, when their construction was first taught

them by a Venetian. But it is not true that the use of bells was

entirely unknown in the ancient Eastern churches, and that they called

the people to church, as at present, with wooden mallets, like the

_clappers_ or _cresselles_, used instead of bells in many churches of

the Romish communion, during the holy week. (See _Cresselle_.) Leo

Allatius, in his Dissertation on the Greek Temples, proves the contrary

from several ancient writers. He says bells first began to be disused

among them after the taking of Constantinople by the Turks; who, it

seems, prohibited them, lest their sound should disturb the repose of

the souls which, according to them, wander in the air.

In Britain, bells were used in churches before the conclusion of the

seventh century, in the monastic societies of Northumbria, and as early

as the sixth, even in those of Caledonia. And they were therefore used

from the first erection of parish churches among us. Those of France and

England appear to have been furnished with several bells. In the time of

Clothaire II., king of France, A. D. 610, the army of that king was

frightened from the siege of Sens, by ringing the bells of St. Stephen’s

Church. The second excerption of Egbert, about A. D. 750, which is

adopted in a French capitulary of 801, commands every priest, at the

proper hours, to sound the bells of his church, and then to go through

the sacred offices to GOD. And the Council of Eanham, in 1009, requires

all the mulcts for sins to be expended in the reparation of the church,

clothing and feeding the ministers of GOD, and the purchase of church

vestments, church books, and church _bells_. These were sometimes

composed of iron in France; and in England, as formerly at Rome, were

frequently made of brass; and, as early as the ninth century, there were

many cast of a large size and deep note. Ingulphus mentions, that

Turketulus, abbot of Croyland, who died about A. D. 870, gave a great

bell to the church of that abbey, which he named _Guthlac_; and

afterwards six others, viz. two which he called _Bartholomew_ and

_Betelin_, two called _Turkettul_ and _Tatwin_, and two named _Pega_ and

_Bega_, all which rang together; the same author says, “Non erat tunc

tanta consonantia campanarum in totâ Angliâ.” Not long after, Kinsius,

archbishop of York, (1051–1061,) gave two great bells to the church of

St. John, at Beverley, and at the same time provided that other churches

in his diocese should be furnished with bells. Mention is made by St.

Aldhelm, and William of Malmesbury, of bells given by St. Dunstan to

churches in the West. The number of bells in every church gave occasion

to a curious and singular piece of architecture in the campanile or bell

tower: an addition which is more susceptible of the grander beauties of

architecture than any other part of the edifice. It was the constant

appendage to every parish church of the Saxons, and is actually

mentioned as such in the laws of Athelstan.

The uses of church bells are summed up in the following monkish

distichs:—

“Laudo Deum verum, plebem voco, congrego clerum,

Defunctos ploro, pestem fugo, festa decoro.”

“Funero plango, fulgura frango, sabbata pango,

Excito lentos, dissipo ventos, paco cruentos.”

Before bells were hung, they were formerly, and in the Romish communion

they still are, washed, crossed, blessed, anointed with chrism, and

named by the bishop. This ceremony was commonly styled _baptizing_ them.

(See _Martène de Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus_, ii. 296.) Some say that it was

introduced by Pope John XIII., who occupied the pontifical chair from

965 to 972, and who first consecrated a bell in the Lateran church, and

gave it the name of John the Baptist. But it is evidently of an older

standing, there being an express prohibition of the practice in a

capitular of Charlemagne in 789—_ut clocæ non baptizentur_.

The following are the regulations of the Church of England on the

subject of bells.

By a constitution of Archbishop Winchelsea, the parishioners shall find,

at their own expense, bells with ropes.

Canon 81. The churchwardens or questmen, and their assistants, shall not

suffer the bells to be rung superstitiously, upon holy days or eves

abrogated by the Book of Common Prayer, nor at any other times, without

good cause to be allowed by the minister of the place, and by

themselves.

Canon 111. The churchwardens shall present all persons, who by untimely

ringing of bells do hinder the minister or preacher.

Canon 15. Upon Wednesdays and Fridays weekly, the minister at the

accustomed hour of service shall resort to the church or chapel, and

warning being given to the people by tolling of a bell, shall say the

litany.

Canon 67. When any is passing out of this life, a bell shall be tolled,

and the minister shall not then slack to do his last duty. And after the

party’s death, (if it so fall out,) there shall be rung no more but one

short peal, and one other before the burial, and one other after the

burial.

Rubric concerning the service of the church. “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 when 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.”

Although the churchwardens may concur in directing the ringing or

tolling of the bells on certain public and private occasions, the

incumbent may prevent the churchwardens from ringing or tolling them at

undue hours, or without just cause. Proceedings may be instituted in the

ecclesiastical court against churchwardens who have violently and

illegally persisted in ringing the bells without consent of the

incumbents.

Bells were used in Ireland at a very early period. Harris, in his

edition of Ware, (vol. ii. p. 129,) quotes Bede as an authority for the

use of bells in the sixth century, and observes on Molyneux’s opinion

that the popular name of the round tower in Ireland was derived from a

Germanico-Saxon word, signifying a bell. Mr. Petrie, in his recent

laborious essay on the Irish Round Towers, has shown that these towers,

as their name denotes, their form and locality suggest, and tradition

teaches, were intended for ecclesiastical belfries. And in the same

work, as well as in the documents collected by Irish antiquarians, it is

shown that bells were known in Ireland as far back as the age of St.

Patrick. Some of these ancient bells are still in existence.

Nankin, in China, was anciently famous for the largeness of its bells;

but their enormous weight having brought down the tower in which they

were hung, the whole building fell to ruin, and the bells have ever

since been disregarded. One of these bells is near 12 English feet high,

the diameter 7½ feet, its circumference 23 feet, and the thickness of

the metal about the edges 7 inches; its figure almost cylindrical,

except for a swelling in the middle. From these dimensions its weight is

computed at 50,000 lbs.

In the churches of Russia the bells are numerous, and distinguished by

their immense size; they are hung, particularly at Moscow, in belfries

or steeples detached from the churches, with gilt or silvered cupolas,

or crosses; and they do not swing, but are fixed immoveably to the

beams, and rung by a rope tied to the clapper, and pulled sideways. One

of these bells, in the belfry of St. Ivan’s church at Moscow, weighed

127,836 English lbs. It has always been esteemed a meritorious act of

religion to present a church with bells, and the piety of the donor has

been estimated by their magnitude. The emperor Bodis Godunof gave a bell

of 288,000 lbs. to the cathedral of Moscow, but he was surpassed by the

empress Anne, (or, as Dr. Clarke and others say, Alexis, in 1653,) at

whose expense a bell was cast, weighing no less than 443,772 lbs., which

exceeds in size every bell in the known world. Its height is 21 feet,

the circumference at the bottom 67 feet 4 inches, and its greatest

thickness 23 inches. The beam to which this vast machine was fastened

being accidentally burnt by a fire in 1737, the bell fell down, and a

fragment was broken off towards the bottom, which left an aperture large

enough to admit two persons abreast without stooping.

In the Russian Divine service the number of strokes on the bell

announces what part of it is beginning. Several blows are struck before

the mass; three before the commencement of the liturgy; and, in the

middle of it, a few strokes apprize the people without, that the hymn to

the holy Virgin is about to be sung, when all work is immediately

suspended, they bow and cross themselves, repeating silently the verse

then singing in the church.—_Overall._ For some curious directions as to

the chiming of the bells in ancient times in Lichfield cathedral, see

_Dugd. Monast._ ed. 1830, vi. 1256.—_Jebb._

BELL, BOOK, AND CANDLE. Between the seventh and the tenth century, the

sentence of excommunication was attended with great solemnities. The

most important was the extinction of lamps or candles by throwing them

on the ground, with an imprecation, that those against whom the curse

was pronounced might be extinguished or destroyed by the vengeance of

GOD. The people were summoned to attend this ceremony by the sound of a

bell, and the curses accompanying the ceremony were pronounced out of a

book by the minister, standing in a balcony. Hence originated the phrase

of cursing by bell, book, and candle.

BEMA. The name of the bishop’s throne in the primitive church, or, as

some understand it, the whole of the upper end of the church, containing

the altar and the apsis. This seat or throne, together with those of the

presbyters, was always fixed at the upper end of the chancel, in a

semicircle beyond the altar. For anciently, the seats of the bishops and

presbyters were joined together, and both were called thrones. The

manner of their sitting is related by Gregory Nazianzen in his

description of the church of Anastasia, where he speaks of himself as

bishop, sitting upon the high throne, and the presbyters on lower

benches on each side of him.—_Bingham._ (See _Apsis_ and _Cathedral_.)

BENEDICITE. A canticle used at Morning Prayer, after the first lesson.

This canticle is so called because, in the Latin version, it so begins.

It is called “The Song of the Three Children,” because Hananiah,

Mishael, and Azariah (whom the prince of the eunuchs named Shadrach,

Meshach, and Abednego, Dan. i. 7) are reported to have sung it in the

burning fiery furnace, into which they were cast by order of

Nebuchadnezzar for adhering stedfastly to their GOD, (Dan. iii. 19,)

&c., and in which GOD preserved them in a miraculous manner (ver.

27).—_Dr. Bennet._

This and the Te Deum are the only hymns used in our service that are of

man’s composing. Our Church being careful, even beyond all the ancient

Churches, in singing to GOD, to sing in the words of GOD.—_Dr. Bisse._

This statement of Dr. Bisse is not altogether correct. The hymns “Holy,

holy, holy Lord God of hosts,” and the “Gloria in Excelsis,” though

suggested by Holy Scripture, are human compilations. And the metrical

_Veni Creator_ is also of man’s composing. The Benedicite was prescribed

to be used in Lent, by King Edward VI.’s First Book.—_Jebb._

BENEDICTINES. An order of monks who profess to follow the rules of St.

Benedict. The Benedictines, being those only that are properly called

monks, wear a loose black gown, with large white sleeves, and a capuche,

or cowl, on their heads, ending in a point behind. In the canon law they

are styled black friars, from the colour of their habit. The rules of

St. Benedict, as observed by the English monks before the dissolution of

the monasteries, were as follows: they were obliged to perform their

devotions seven times in twenty-four hours, the whole circle of which

devotions had respect to the passion and death of CHRIST: they were

obliged always to go two and two together: every day in Lent they were

obliged to fast till six in the evening; and abated of their usual time

of sleeping and eating; but they were not allowed to practise any

voluntary austerity without leave of their superior: they never

conversed in their refectory at meals, but were obliged to attend to the

reading of the Scriptures: they all slept in the same dormitory, but not

two in a bed: they lay in their clothes: for small faults they were shut

out from meals: for greater they were debarred religious commerce, and

excluded from the chapel: incorrigible offenders were excluded from the

monasteries. Every monk had two coats, two cowls, a table book, a knife,

a needle, and a handkerchief; and the furniture of his bed was a mat, a

blanket, a rug, and a pillow.

The time when this order came into England is well known, for in 596

Gregory the Great sent hither Augustine, prior of the monastery of St.

Andrew at Rome, with several other Benedictine monks. Augustine became

archbishop of Canterbury; and the Benedictines founded several

monasteries in England, as also the metropolitan church of Canterbury.

Pope John XXII., who died in 1354, after an exact inquiry, found, that,

since the first rise of the order, there had been of it twenty-four

popes, near 200 cardinals, 7000 archbishops, 15,000 bishops, 15,000

abbots of renown, above 4000 saints, and upwards of 37,000 monasteries.

There have been likewise of this order twenty emperors and ten

empresses, forty-seven kings, and above fifty queens, twenty sons of

emperors, and forty-eight sons of kings, about one hundred princesses,

daughters of kings and emperors, besides dukes, marquises, earls,

countesses, &c., innumerable. This order has produced a vast number of

eminent authors and other learned men. Rabanus set up the school of

Germany. Alcuinus founded the university of Paris. Dionysius Exiguus

perfected the ecclesiastical computation. Guido invented the scale of

music, and Sylvester the organ. They boast to have produced Anselm,

Ildephonsus, Venerable Bede, &c. There are nuns likewise who follow the

order of St. Benedict: among whom those who call themselves mitigated,

eat flesh three times a week, on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays; the

others observe the rule of St. Benedict in its rigour, and eat no flesh

unless they are sick. The Benedictines were the most extensive and

powerful order in England. All the cathedral convents, with the

exception of the Augustinian monastery of Carlisle, were of this order,

as were four out of the five that were converted into cathedrals by

Henry VIII., viz. Gloucester, Oxford, Peterborough, and Chester: and all

the mitred abbeys, with the exception of Waltham and Cirencester, which

were Augustinian. In Ireland they yielded in importance and numbers to

the Augustinians. They were the great patrons of church architecture and

of learning in England. The chief branches of the Benedictine order in

England were the Cluniacs, founded by Bernon, abbot of Gigniac, in 913;

and the Cistercian, founded by Robert, abbot of Molême, at Citeaux in

Burgundy, in 1098. (See _Cluniacs_ and _Cistercians_.)

BENEDICTION. A solemn act of blessing performed by the bishops and

priests of the Church. In the Jewish Church, the priests, by the command

of God, were to bless the people, by saying, “The LORD bless thee, and

keep thee. The LORD make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious

unto thee. The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee

peace.” In the Church of England, several forms of blessing are used

agreeing with the particular office of which they form a part. The

ordinary benediction at the close of Divine service, from the end of the

Communion office, is in these words: “The peace of GOD, which passeth

all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love

of GOD, and of his SON JESUS CHRIST our LORD: and the blessing of GOD

Almighty, the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST, be amongst you, and

remain with you always.” The former part of this is taken from

Philippians iv. 7, and the latter may be considered as a Christian

paraphrase of Numbers vi. 24, &c. Other forms of blessing, or

modifications of the above, may be found in the offices for

Confirmation, Matrimony, and Visitation of the Sick. The benediction at

the end of the Communion Service must be said by the bishop, if he be

present.

In the Romish Church, on Holy Thursday, the officiating priest blesses,

consecrates, and exorcises, three sorts of oils. The first is that used

in extreme unction; the second that of the Chrysma; the third that of

the Catechumens; ending with this salutation, Ave sanctum oleum, “Hail

holy oil!” after which the new-made holy oils are carried in procession

into the sacristy.—_Piscara, Praxis Cerem._

In Spain, and some parts of France bordering upon Spain, the custom of

blessing meats at Easter is still preserved. This is supposed to be done

in opposition to the heresy of the Priscillianists, which infected Spain

and Guienne: for Priscillian held, that the devil, and not GOD, was the

creator of flesh, and that the faithful ought to reject it as impure and

wicked. This blessing is scarce ever used, except in those churches, and

near those places, where that heresy formerly prevailed.—_Alcet’s

Ritual._

On Easter eve they perform the ceremony of blessing the new fire. At the

ninth hour, the old fire is put out, and at the same time an Acolyth

lights the new fire without the church. The officiating priest, with his

attendants, walks in procession to the place where the ceremony is to be

performed. After repeating a form of prayer, he makes the sign of the

cross over the fire. In the mean time the Thuriferary puts some coals

into the thurible, into which the priest throws some frankincense,

having first blessed it: then he sprinkles the fire with holy water,

saying, _Asperges me, Domine_, “Thou wilt sprinkle me, O Lord.” This

ceremony of the holy fire seems to be borrowed from pagan superstition;

for the ancient Romans used to renew the fire of Vesta in the month of

March, as Ovid informs us;

Adde quod arcanâ fieri novus ignis in æde

Dicitur, et vires flamma refecta capit.

Add that the hallowed fire new vigour takes,

And round the sacred walls with added lustre breaks.

The principal use of this holy fire, among the Roman Catholics, is to

light therewith the Paschal taper; which likewise receives its

benediction, or blessing, by the priest’s putting five grains of

incense, in the form of a cross, into the taper. This blessed taper must

remain on the gospel-side of the altar from Easter eve to Ascension

day.—_Baudry, Manual. Cerem._ _Fast._ lib. iii. 144. _Piscara, Praxis

Cerem._

The blessing of baptismal fonts (another piece of Popish superstition)

is performed, among other ceremonies, by the priest’s blowing thrice on

the water, and in three different places; and afterwards plunging a

taper thrice into it, observing to sink it deeper the second time than

the first, and the third than the second, saying at each immersion,

_Descendat in hanc plenitudinem fontis virtus Spiritus Sancti_, i. e.

“May the influence of the Holy Spirit descend on this water.”—_Piscara_,

ibid.

On the eve before Christmas, the holy father blesses a sword, enriched

with precious stones, wrought in the form of a dove; with a ducal hat

fixed on the point of it, richly adorned with jewels. (_Sacra Cerem.

Eccl. Rom._) This he sends as a present to some prince, for whom he has

a particular affection, or some great general, who has deserved it by

fighting against the enemies of the Church. Pope Pius II. sent the hat

and sword to Lewis XI., with four Latin verses engraved on the blade, by

which his Holiness exhorted him to destroy the Ottoman empire. The

popes, according to Aymon, ground this custom on what is said in the

Second Book of the Maccabees, c. v., that “Judas the Maccabee, going to

fight Nicanor, general of the army of Antiochus, saw in a dream the high

priest Onias praying to God for the Jewish people, and the prophet

Jeremiah presenting him with a sword, and saying these words; ‘Receive,

Judas, this holy sword, which is given thee by the Lord, to destroy the

enemies of Israel.’”

But one of the most extraordinary benedictions of this kind is that of

_bells_; in the performance of which there is a great deal of pomp and

superstition. (See _Bells_.)

BENEDICTUS. The Latin for “blessed,” which is the first word in one of

the hymns to be said or sung after the second lesson in the Morning

Service of the Church. The Benedictus is taken from Luke i., from the

68th to the 72nd verse, being part of the song of Zacharias the priest,

concerning his son John the Baptist, who was to be the forerunner of

CHRIST, but was then only in his infancy.

When the gospel was first published to the world, the angels sang

praise; and all holy men, to whom it was revealed, entertained these

“good tidings” with great joy. And since it is our duty also, whenever

we hear the gospel read, to give glory to GOD, therefore the Church

appoints this hymn, which was composed by holy Zacharias upon the first

notice that GOD had sent a SAVIOUR to mankind, and is one of the first

evangelical hymns indited by GOD’S SPIRIT upon this occasion. Its

original therefore is Divine, its matter unexceptionable, and its

fitness for this place unquestionable.—_Dean Comber._

This prophecy of Zacharias, called “Benedictus,” for the reason already

mentioned, was uttered on the birth of John the Baptist; and is a

thanksgiving for the redemption of mankind, of which he was to publish

the speedy approach. It copies very nearly the style of the Jewish

prophets, who described spiritual blessings by temporal imagery. Thus

meaning to praise the “Father of mercies” (2 Cor. i. 3) for delivering

all nations from the dominion of the wicked one, it “blesses the LORD

GOD of Israel for saving his people from their enemies, and from the

hand of those that hate them.” Now this kind of language was laid aside

after our SAVIOUR’S ascension; and therefore the prophecy before us is

not of later date, but genuine. Yet it sufficiently explains to what

sort of “salvation” it refers, by mentioning “the remission of sins, the

giving of light to them that sat in darkness, and the guiding of their

feet into the way of peace.” And so it may teach us both the fitness and

the method of assigning to the Old Testament predictions an evangelical

interpretation. The people, in repeating it, should remember, that the

words, “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest,”

belong, not to our SAVIOUR, but to the Baptist. And it is easily to be

apprehended, that if, in the dawning which preceded “the Sun of

righteousness,” (Mal. iv. 2,) good Zacharias offered up his thanks with

such transport, we, to whom he shines out in full splendour, ought to

recite it with double gratitude.—_Abp. Secker._

Though the hundredth psalm is almost constantly used after the second

lesson, there seems no good reason why this hymn should be laid aside.

They are both equally indited by the HOLY SPIRIT, and both admirably

calculated to assist the devotion and elevate the affections of a

Christian congregation: and the hymn, being placed first, seems to have

been intended for more general use than the psalm.—_Waldo._

The Church hath appointed two songs of praise and thanksgiving to be

used, either of them after each lesson, but not so indifferently but

that the former practice of exemplary Churches and reason may guide us

in the choice. For the “Te Deum,” “Benedictus,” “Magnificat,” and “Nunc

Dimittis,” being the most expressive jubilations and rejoicings for the

redemption of the world, may be said more often than the rest,

especially on Sundays and other festivals of our LORD.—_Bishop Sparrow._

The Benedictus was used exclusively after the second lesson in the First

Book of King Edward VI.

BENEFICE. In the ecclesiastical sense of the word, means a church

endowed with a revenue for the performance of Divine service, or the

revenue itself assigned to an ecclesiastical person, by way of stipend

for the service he is to do that church.

As to the origin of the word, we find it as follows, in _Alcet’s

Ritual_: “This word was anciently appropriated to the lands, which kings

used to bestow on those who had fought valiantly in the wars; and was

not used in this particular signification, but during the time that the

Goths and Lombards reigned in Italy, under whom those fiefs were

introduced, which were peculiarly termed Benefices, and those who

enjoyed them, Beneficiarii, or vassals. For notwithstanding that the

Romans also bestowed lands on their captains and soldiers, yet those

lands had not the name of Benefices appropriated to them, but the word

benefice was a general term, which included all kinds of gifts or

grants, according to the ancient signification of the Latin word. In

imitation of the new sense, in which that word was taken with regard to

fiefs, it began to be employed in the Church, when the temporalities

thereof began to be divided, and to be given up to particular persons,

by taking them out of those of the bishops. This the bishops themselves

first introduced, purposely to reward merit, and assist such

ecclesiastics as might be in necessity. However, this was soon carried

to greater lengths, and at last became unlimited, as has since been

manifest in the clericate and the monasteries. A benefice therefore is

not merely a right of receiving part of the temporalities of the Church,

for the service a person does it; a right, which is founded upon the

gospel, and has always subsisted since the apostolic age; but it is that

of enjoying a part of the temporalities of the Church, assigned and

determined in a special form, so as that no other clergyman can lay any

claim or pretension to it.—And in this age it is not barely the right of

enjoying part of the temporalities of the Church; but is likewise a

fixed and permanent right, in such a manner that it devolves on another,

after the death of the incumbent; which anciently was otherwise; for, at

the rise of benefices, they were indulged to clergymen only for a stated

time, or for life; after which they reverted to the Church.”

It is not easy to determine when the effects of the Church were first

divided. It is certain that, till the 4th century, all the revenues were

in the hands of the bishops, who distributed them by their _Œconomi_ or

stewards; and they consisted chiefly in alms and voluntary

contributions. When the Church came to have inheritances, part of them

were assigned for the maintenance of the clergy, of which we find some

footsteps in the 5th and 6th centuries; but the allotment seems not to

have been a fixed thing, but to have been absolutely discretional, till

the 12th century.

Benefices are divided by the canonists into _simple_ and _sacerdotal_.

The first sort lays no obligation, but to read prayers, sing, &c. Such

kind of Beneficiaries are canons, chaplains, chantors, &c. The second is

charged with the cure of souls, the guidance and direction of

consciences, &c. Such are rectories, vicarages, &c. The canonists

likewise specify three ways of vacating a benefice; viz. _de jure_, _de

facto_, and _by the sentence of a judge_. A benefice is void _de jure_,

when a person is guilty of crimes, for which he is disqualified by law

to hold a benefice; such are heresy, simony, &c. A benefice is void both

_de facto_ and _de jure_, by the natural death, or resignation, of the

incumbent. Lastly, a benefice is vacated _by sentence of the judge_,

when the incumbent is dispossessed of it by way of punishment for

immorality, or any crime against the state.

The Romanists, again, distinguish benefices into _regular_ and

_secular_. Regular benefices are those held by a religious or monk of

any order, abbey, priory, or convent. Secular benefices are those

conferred on the secular priests; of which sort are most of their cures.

The Church distinguishes between _dignities_ and _benefices_. The former

title is only applicable to bishoprics, deaneries, archdeaconries, and

prebends: the latter comprehends all ecclesiastical preferments under

those degrees; as rectories and vicarages. It is essential to these

latter, that they be bestowed freely, reserving nothing to the patron;

that they be given as a provision for the clerk, who is only an

_usu-fructuary_, and hath no inheritance in them; and that all contracts

concerning them between patron and incumbent be, in their own nature,

void.

BENEFICIARIES, or BENEFICIATI. The inferior, non-capitular members of

cathedrals, &c., were so called in many Churches abroad; as possessing a

benefice or endowment in the Church. They very much corresponded to our

minor canons and vicars choral, &c.—_Jebb._

BENEFIT OF CLERGY. The _privilegium clericale_, or, in common speech,

the benefit of the clergy, had its origin from the pious regard paid by

Christian princes to the Church of CHRIST. The exemptions which they

granted to the Church were principally of two kinds: 1. Exemption of

_places_ consecrated to religious offices from criminal arrests, which

was the foundation of sanctuaries. (See _Sanctuary_, _Asylum_.) 2.

Exemptions of the persons of the clergy from criminal process before the

secular magistrate in a few particular cases, which was the true origin

and meaning of the _privilegium clericale_. Originally the law was held

that no man should be admitted to the privilege of the clergy but such

as had the _habitum et tonsuram clericalem_. But, in process of time, a

much wider and more comprehensive criterion was established, every one

that could read being accounted a clerk or clericus, and allowed the

benefit of clerkship, whether in holy orders or not.

BEREANS. An obscure sect of seceders from the Scottish establishment,

which originated in the exclusion of one Barclay from the parish of

Fettercairn, in Kincardineshire, in 1773. They adopted the name of

Bereans in allusion to the text—“These (the Bereans) were more noble

than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all

readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those

things were so.” (Acts xvii. 11.) The Bereans reject all natural

religion,—they take faith to be a simple credence of GOD’S word,—they

consider personal assurance of the essence of faith, and unbelief as the

unpardonable sin. They deny any spiritual interpretation to the

historical books of the Old Testament, and reckon the Psalms so

exclusively typical or prophetical of CHRIST, as to be without

application to the experience of individual Christians.

BEREFELLARII. In the collegiate church of Beverley the seven inferior

clergymen, ranking next after the prebendaries, were so called. The

origin of the name is unknown; though it appears from ancient records,

that it was a popular and vulgar one; their proper designation being

_Rectores Chori_; that is, a sort of minor canons. They were also called

_Personæ_. (See _Rector Chori_, and _Persona_.)—See _Dugdale’s

Monasticon_, ed. 1830, vi. 1307.—_Jebb._

BERENGARIANS. A denomination, in the eleventh century, which adhered to

the opinions of Berenger, archdeacon of Angers, the learned and able

opponent of Lanfranc, whose work has been in part recovered, and was

printed a few years since at Berlin. “It was never my assertion,” says

he, “that the bread and wine on the altar are only sacramental signs.

Let no one suppose that I affirm that the bread was not become the body

of CHRIST from being simple bread by consecration on the altar. It

plainly becomes the body of CHRIST, but not the bread which in its

matter and essence is corruptible, but in as far as it is capable of

becoming what it was not, it becomes the body of CHRIST, but not

according to the manner of the production of his very body, for that

body, once generated on earth so many years ago, can never be produced

again. The bread, however, becomes what it never was before

consecration, and from being the common substance of bread, is to us the

blessed body of CHRIST.” His followers, however, did not hold to his

doctrines, which, in themselves, were a Catholic protest against Romish

errors.—_Cave, Hist. Literar. Sæc. Hildebrand_.

BIBLE. (See _Scripture_ and _Canon of Scripture_.) The name applied by

Christians by way of eminence to the sacred volume, in which are

contained the revelations of God. The names and numbers of the canonical

books will be found under the word _Scripture_.

The division of the Scriptures into chapters, as they are at present,

took place in the middle ages. Some attribute it to Stephen Langton,

archbishop of Canterbury, in the reigns of John and Henry III. But the

real author of this invention was Hugo de Sancto Caro, commonly called

Hugo Cardinalis, from his being the first Dominican raised to the degree

of cardinal. This Hugo flourished about the year 1240. He wrote a

Comment on the Scriptures, and projected the first Concordance, which is

that of the Latin Vulgate Bible. As the intention of this work was to

render the finding of any word or passage in the Scriptures more easy,

it became necessary to divide the book into sections, and the sections

into subdivisions. These sections are the chapters into which the Bible

has been divided since that time. But the subdivision of the chapters

was not then in verses as at present. Hugo subdivided them by the

letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, which were placed in the margin at an equal

distance from each other, according to the length of the chapters. About

the year 1445, Mordecai Nathan, a famous Jewish Rabbi, improved Hugo’s

invention, and subdivided the chapters into verses, in the manner they

are at present.

The first English Bible we read of was that translated by Wickliff,

about the year 1360. A translation of the New Testament by Wickliff was

printed by Lewis, about 1731, and the whole of Wickliff’s translation

has lately been published at Oxford. J. de Trevisa, who died about 1398,

is also said to have translated the whole Bible; but whether any copies

of his translation are remaining, does not appear. The first printed

Bible in our language was that translated by W. Tindal, assisted by

Miles Coverdale, printed abroad in 1526; but most of the copies were

bought up and burnt by Bishop Tunstal and Sir Thomas More. Of this

edition but two copies are known to exist, one of which was discovered

by Archdeacon Cotton, in St. Paul’s Library. It only contained the New

Testament, and was revised and republished by the same person in 1530.

The prologues and prefaces added to it reflect on the bishops and

clergy; but this edition was also suppressed, and the copies burnt. In

1532, Tindal and his associates finished the whole Bible, except the

Apocrypha, and printed it abroad; but while he was afterwards preparing

a second edition, he was taken up and burnt for heresy in Flanders. On

Tindal’s death, his work was carried on by Coverdale, and John Rogers,

superintendent of an English Church in Germany, and the first martyr in

the reign of Queen Mary, who translated the Apocrypha, and revised

Tindal’s translation, comparing it with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and

German, and adding prefaces and notes from Luther’s Bible. The earliest

edition was printed in 1535, it is supposed at Zurich; though the book

has no place nor name. He dedicated the whole to Henry VIII. in 1537,

under the borrowed name of Thomas Matthews; whence this has been usually

called Matthews’ Bible. It is supposed to have been printed at Hamburgh,

and licence obtained for publishing it in England, by the favour of

Archbishop Cranmer, and the Bishops Latimer and Shaxton. The first Bible

printed by authority in England, and publicly set up in churches, was

this same Tindal’s version, revised and compared with the Hebrew, and in

many places amended, by Miles Coverdale, afterwards bishop of Exeter;

and examined after him by Archbishop Cranmer, who added a preface to it;

whence this was called Cranmer’s, or the great Bible. It was printed in

1539 by Grafton and Whitchurch, and in 1540 by Whitchurch, (some copies

have “Richard Grafton,”) and published in 1540; and, by a royal

proclamation, every parish was obliged to set one of the copies in their

church, under the penalty of forty shillings a month: yet, two years

after, the Popish bishops obtained its suppression by the king. It was

restored under Edward VI., suppressed again under Queen Mary’s reign,

and restored again in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, and a new

edition of it given, 1562, printed by Harrison. Some English exiles at

Geneva, in Queen Mary’s reign, viz. Goodman, Gilbie, Sampson, Cole,

Whittingham, and Knox, made a new translation, printed there in 1560,

the New Testament having been printed in 1557; hence called the Geneva

Bible, containing the variations of readings, marginal annotations, &c.,

on account of which it was much valued by the Puritan party in that and

the following reigns. Coverdale has also been supposed to have had a

part in this version; but from what is known of his movements, it

appears impossible that he should have been concerned in it. Archdeacon

Cotton says, “The first edition of this version was for many years the

most popular one in England, as its numerous editions may testify. After

the appearance of King James’s translation, the use of it seems to have

declined; yet a fondness for its notes still lingered; and we have

several instances of their being attached to editions of the royal

translation, one of which kind was printed so lately as 1715.”

Archbishop Parker resolved on a new translation for the public use of

the Church; and engaged the bishops and other learned men to take each a

share or portion; these, being afterwards joined together and printed,

with short annotations, in 1568, in large folio, by Richard Jugge, made,

what was afterwards called, the Great English Bible, and commonly the

Bishops’ Bible. In 1569 it was also published in octavo, in a small but

fine black letter; and here the chapters were divided into verses, but

without any breaks for them, in which the method of the Geneva Bible was

followed, which was the first English Bible where any distinction of

verses was made. It was afterwards printed in large folio, with

corrections, and several prolegomena, in 1572; this is called Matthew

Parker’s Bible. The initial letters of each translator’s name were put

at the end of his part; _ex. gr._ at the end of the Pentateuch, W. E.

for William Exon; that is, William [Alley], bishop of Exeter, whose

allotment ended there; at the end of Samuel, R. M. for Richard

Menevensis, or Richard [Davies], bishop of St. David’s, to whom the

second allotment fell, and so with the rest. The archbishop overlooked,

directed, examined, and finished the whole. This translation was used in

the churches for forty years, though the Geneva Bible was more read in

private houses, being printed above twenty times in as many years. King

James bore to the Geneva version an inveterate hatred, on account of the

notes, which, at the Hampton Court conference, he charged as partial,

untrue, seditious, &c. The Bishops’ Bible, too, had its faults. The king

frankly owned that he had seen no good translation of the Bible in

English; but he thought that of Geneva the worst of all. After the

translation of the Bible by the bishops, two other private versions had

been made of the New Testament; the first by Laurence Thompson, from

Beza’s Latin edition, with the notes of Beza, published in 1582, in

quarto, and afterwards in 1589, varying very little from the Geneva

Bible; the second by the Romanists at Rheims, in 1584, called the

Rhemish Bible, or Rhemish translation. These translators finding it

impossible to keep the people from having the Scriptures in their vulgar

tongue, resolved to give a version of their own, as favourable to their

cause as might be. It was printed on large paper, with a fair letter and

margin. One complaint against it was, its retaining a multitude of

Hebrew and Greek words untranslated, for want, as the editors express

it, of proper and adequate terms in the English to render them by; as

the words _azymes_, _tunike_, _holocaust_, _prepuce_, _pasche_, &c.:

however, many of the copies were seized by Queen Elizabeth’s searchers,

and confiscated; and Thomas Cartwright was solicited by Secretary

Walsingham to refute it; but after some progress had been made in it,

Archbishop Whitgift prohibited his proceeding further, judging it

improper that the doctrine of the Church of England should be committed

to the defence of a Puritan. He appointed Dr. Fulke in his place, who

refuted the Rhemists with great spirit and learning. Cartwright’s

Refutation was also afterwards published in 1618, under Archbishop

Abbot. About thirty years after their New Testament, the Roman Catholics

published a translation of the Old, at Douay, 1609 and 1610, from the

Vulgate, with annotations, so that the English Roman Catholics have now

the whole Bible in their mother tongue; though it is to be observed,

they are forbidden to read it without a licence from their superiors:

and it is a curious fact, that there is not an edition of the Bible

which does not lie under the ban of one or of all the popes, most of

them being in the Index Expurgatorius. The last English Bible was that

which proceeded from the Hampton Court conference in 1603: where, many

exceptions being made to the Bishops’ Bible, King James gave order for a

new one: not, (as the preface expresses it,) for a translation

altogether new, nor yet to make a good one better, or, of many good

ones, one best. Fifty-four learned men were appointed to this office by

the king, as appears by his letter to the archbishop, dated 1604; which

being three years before the translation was entered upon, it is

probable seven of them were either dead, or had declined the task; since

Fuller’s list of the translators makes but forty-seven, who, being

ranged under six divisions, entered on their province in 1607. It was

published in 1611 in fol. by Barker, with a dedication to James, and a

learned preface; and is commonly called King James’s Bible. After this,

all the other versions dropped, and fell into disuse, except the

Epistles and Gospels in the Common Prayer Book, which were still

continued according to the Bishops’ translation till the alteration of

the liturgy in 1661, and the Psalms and Hymns, which are to this day

continued as in the old version. See for a full list of the editions of

the English Bible, _Archd. Cotton’s List of the Editions of the English

Bible_, &c.

The New Testament was translated into Irish in the 16th century.

Nicholas Walsh, chancellor of St. Patrick’s, and John Kearney, treasurer

of the same cathedral, began this work in 1573. In 1577 Walsh was

appointed bishop of Ossory, but still proceeded in his undertaking, till

he was murdered in 1585. Some years before this, Nehemiah Donnellan (who

was archbishop of Tuam in 1595) had joined Walsh and Kearney in their

undertaking. This translation was completed by William O’Donnell, or

Daniel, successor of Donnellan in the archiepiscopal see, and published

in 1603. Bishop Bedell procured the Old Testament to be translated by

Mr. King, who being ignorant of the original languages, executed it from

the English version. Bedell revised it, comparing it with the Hebrew,

the LXX., and the Italian version of Diodati. He supported Mr. King,

during the undertaking, with his utmost ability, and, when the

translation was finished, would have printed it at his own house, if he

had not been prevented by the troubles in Ireland. This translation

(together with Archbishop Daniel’s version of the New Testament) was

printed in London in 1685, at the expense of the celebrated Robert

Boyle.—_King’s Primer of the Church History of Ireland._ _Horne’s

Introduction to the Holy Scriptures._

The Welsh version (the New Testament only) was published in the 16th

century. The act of 5 Eliz. c. 28, directed that the Bible and Prayer

Book should be translated into Welsh; committing the direction of this

version to the four Welsh bishops. The translators were, Thomas Huet,

precentor of St. David’s, Richard Davies, bishop of St. David’s, and

William Salesbury. It was printed in London in 1567. The former edition

was revised, and the Old Testament translated, chiefly by William

Morgan, bishop of Llandaff, afterwards of St. Asaph. This was printed in

1588, and was revised by Richard Parry, bishop of St. Asaph, and

reprinted in 1620: the basis of all subsequent editions.—_Horne’s

Introd._

The Manx version of the Bible was begun by the exertions of Bishop

Wilson, by whom the Gospel of St. Matthew only was printed. His