EASTER ANTHEMS. On Easter day, instead of the _Venite_, certain anthems

are appointed to be said or sung. At the last review the first two

verses now used were prefixed, and the authorized translation adopted.

In the First Book of King Edward VI., these anthems were appointed to be

said or sung “afore matins, the people being assembled in the church;”

and were followed by the following Versicle and Response.

_Priest._ Show forth to all the nations the glory of GOD.

_Answ._ And among all people his wonderful works.

With a special prayer. (See _Anthem._)

EBIONITES. Heretics in the first century; so called from their leader,

Ebion. The _Ebionites_, as well as the _Nazarenes_, had their origin

from the circumcised Christians, who had retired from Jerusalem to

Pella, during the war between the Jews and Romans, and made their first

appearance after the destruction of Jerusalem, about the time of

Domitian, or a little before.

Ebion, the author of the heresy of the Ebionites, was a disciple of

Cerinthus, and his successor. He improved upon the errors of his master,

and added to them new opinions of his own. He began his preaching in

Judea: he taught in Asia, and even at Rome: his tenets infected the isle

of Cyprus. St. John opposed both Cerinthus and Ebion in Asia; and it is

thought that this apostle wrote his Gospel, in the year 97, particularly

against this heresy.

The Ebionites held the same errors as the Nazarenes. They united the

ceremonies of the law with the precepts of the gospel: they observed

both the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. They called their

place of assembling a _synagogue_, and not a _church._ They bathed every

day, which was the custom of the Jews. In celebrating the eucharist,

they made use of unleavened bread, but no wine.

They added to the observance of the law divers superstitions. They

adored Jerusalem as the house of GOD. Like the Samaritans, they would

not suffer a person of another religion to touch them. They abstained

from the flesh of animals, and even from milk: and, lest any one should

object to them that passage of the Gospel, where our LORD says he

desires to eat of the passover, they corrupted it. When they were sick,

or bitten by a serpent, they plunged themselves into water, and invoked

all sorts of things to their assistance.

They disagreed among themselves in relation to our LORD JESUS CHRIST.

Some of them said he was born, like other men, of Joseph and Mary, and

acquired sanctification only by his good works. Others of them allowed

that he was born of a virgin, but denied that he was the _Word_ of GOD,

or had a pre-existence before his human generation. They said he was

indeed the only true prophet, but yet a mere man, who, by his virtue,

had arrived at being called CHRIST and the Son of GOD. They supposed

that CHRIST and the devil were two principles, which GOD had opposed the

one to the other.

Though the Ebionites observed the law, yet they differed from the Jews

in many points. They acknowledged the sanctity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,

Moses, Aaron, and Joshua; but they laughed at all those who came after

them. They rejected some parts of the Pentateuch; and when they were too

closely pressed by these books, they entirely abandoned them.

Of the New Testament, they acknowledged only the Gospel of St. Matthew,

that is, that which was written in Hebrew, and which they called the

_Gospel according to the Hebrews_. But they took from it the two first

chapters, and corrupted other passages of it. They absolutely rejected

St. Paul as an apostate, and an enemy of the law, and published several

calumnies against him. They had likewise false _Acts of the Apostles_,

in which they mixed a great many fables.

As to their manner of life, they imitated the Carpocratians, the most

infamous of all heretics. They rejected virginity and continence: they

obliged children to marry very young: they allowed married persons to

separate from each other, and marry again, as often as they pleased.

St. Justin, St. Irenæus, and Origen, wrote against the Ebionites.

Symmachus, author of one of the Greek versions of the Scriptures, was an

Ebionite.

ECCLESIASTES. A canonical book of the Old Testament. It is called “The

words of the Preacher, the son of David, king of Jerusalem,” that is, of

Solomon, who, from the great excellency of his instructions, was

emphatically styled “the preacher.” The design of it is to show the

vanity of all sublunary things, in order to which the author enumerates

the several objects upon which men place their happiness in this life,

and then discovers the emptiness and insufficiency of all worldly

enjoyments, by many various reflections on the evils of human life. The

conclusion of the whole is, in the words of the preacher, “Fear God, and

keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” St. Jerome

observes, that this pious inference prevented the Jews from suppressing

this whole book of Ecclesiastes, which they had thoughts of doing, (as

well as many other writings of Solomon, which are now lost and

forgotten,) because it asserts that the creatures of GOD are vain, and

all things as nothing; it was also thought to contain some dangerous

opinions, and some particular expressions that might infuse doubts

concerning the immortality of the soul.

The word _Ecclesiastes_, which is Greek, signifies _a preacher_. The

Hebrews call it _Coheleth_, which literally signifies _a collector_,

because it is supposed to be a sermon or discourse delivered to an

assembly. The Talmudists will have King Hezekiah to be the author of it.

Kimchi ascribes it to Isaiah, and Grotius to Zorobabel; but the book

itself affords no foundation for these conjectures. On the contrary, as

observed by Mr. Holden, “The author is expressly styled in the

initiatory verse, _the son of David, king in Jerusalem_: and in the 12th

verse he is described as _king over Israel, in Jerusalem_. These

passages are found in every known MS., and in all the ancient versions;

and Solomon, as is well known, was the only son of David who ever

reigned in Jerusalem. The book has been thus admitted into the sacred

canon as the production of Solomon, to whom it has also been ascribed by

a regular and concurrent tradition. A collateral proof arises from the

contents of the work itself, in which the author is stated to have

excelled in wisdom beyond all who were before him in Jerusalem, and to

have composed many proverbs: circumstances descriptive of Solomon, and

of no other personage whose name is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. The

writer is likewise represented as abounding in wealth and treasure, &c.,

extremely applicable to Solomon.” Mr. Holden, and Mr. Desvœux, in their

very learned and exhaustive dissertations, completely refute the really

shallow objections of Grotius, Dathe, Eichhorn, and others, as to

Solomon’s authorship. They do not, however, quite agree as to the scope

of the book. Mr. Desvœux (to whom Dr. Graves, in his Lectures on the

Pentateuch, assents) states that his object is to prove the immortality

of the soul, or rather the necessity of another state after this life,

from such arguments as may be afforded by reason and experience. Mr.

Holden abides by the generally received opinion, that it is “an arguing

into the _summum bonum_, or chief good: not however merely as regarding

happiness in this life, but that which in all its bearings and relations

is conducive to the best interests of man. This he finally determines to

be true wisdom: ... and every part of the discourse, when considered in

reference to this object, tends to develope the nature of true wisdom,

to display its excellence, or to recommend its acquirement.” So Bishop

Gray: “he endeavours to illustrate the insufficiency of earthly

enjoyment; not with design to excite in us a disgust to life, but to

influence us to prepare for that state where there is no vanity.”

Ecclesiastes may justly be considered as a sequel to the Book of

Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, according to a modern author, is a dialogue in

which a man of piety disputes against a libertine who favoured the

opinions of the Sadducees; his reason is, because there are some things

in it which seem to contradict each other, and could not proceed from

the same person. But this may be wholly owing to Solomon’s method of

disputing _pro_ and _con_, and proposing the objections of the

Sadducees, to which he replies.

The generality of commentators believe this book to be the product of

Solomon’s repentance, after having experienced all the follies and

pleasures of life; notwithstanding which, some have questioned whether

Solomon be saved, and his repentance is still a problem in the Church of

Rome.

ECCLESIASTIC. A person holding any office in the sacred ministry of the

Church. (See _Bishop_, _Priest_, _and Deacon_.)

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIANS. (See _Historians_.)

ECCLESIASTICUS. An apocryphal book of Scripture, distinguished by this

name because it was read (_in ecclesia_) in the church as a book of

piety and instruction, but not of infallible authority; or it is so

called, perhaps, to distinguish it from the book of Ecclesiastes; or to

show that it contains, as well as the former, precepts and exhortations

to wisdom and virtue. The anonymous preface to this work informs us,

that the author of it was a Jew, called Jesus, the son of Sirach, who

wrote it in Hebrew; but it was rendered into Greek by his grandson of

the same name. The Hebrew copy of this book, which St. Jerome saw, was

entitled _Proverbs_. By many of the ancients it was styled Παναρετος,

_the book of every virtue_: but the most common name among the Greeks

is, _The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach_. This book was written under

the high priesthood of Onias III., and translated in the reign of

Ptolemy Euergetes, or Physcon. Some of the ancients have ascribed it to

Solomon. The author, no doubt, had in his view the subject and thoughts

expressed in the Proverbs of that king, and has followed his method of

teaching morality by sentences or maxims. This book begins with an

exhortation to the pursuit of wisdom; after which follow many maxims of

morality to the forty-fourth chapter, where the author begins to

rehearse the praises of famous men, such as the patriarchs, prophets,

and the most illustrious men of the Jewish nation. The Latin version of

Ecclesiasticus has more in it than the Greek, several particulars being

inserted in that, which are not in the other. These, Dr. Prideaux

observes, seem to have been interpolated by the first author of that

version; but now, the Hebrew being lost, the Greek, which was made from

it by the grandson of the author, must stand for the original; and from

that the English translation was made.

Parts of Ecclesiasticus are strikingly like the style of Solomon, and

truly Hebraic in their cast, as has been remarked by Bishop Lowth in his

24th Prelection; who subjoins a translation of the 24th chapter into

Hebrew. He recognises however a considerable difference between its

style and that of Solomon.

ECLECTICS. A sect which arose in the Christian Church towards the close

of the second century. They professed to make truth the only object of

their inquiry, and to be ready to adopt from all the different systems

and sects such tenets as they thought agreeable to it; and hence their

name, from ἐκλεγω, to _select_. They preferred Plato to the other

philosophers, and looked upon his opinions concerning GOD, the human

soul, and things invisible, as conformable to the spirit and genius of

the Christian doctrine. One of the principal patrons of this system was

Ammonius Saccas, who at this time laid the foundation of that sect,

afterwards distinguished by the name of the New Platonists, in the

Alexandrian School.—_Broughton._

ECONOMICAL. The economical method of disputing was that in which the

disputants accommodated themselves, as much as possible, to the taste

and prejudices of those whom they were endeavouring to gain over to the

truth. Some of the early Christians carried this condescension too far,

and abused St. Paul’s example. (1 Cor. ix. 20.) The word is derived from

οἰκονομία, _dispensatio rei familiaris_, the discretionary arrangement

of things in a house according to circumstances.

ECONOMIST. (_Œconomus._) An officer in some cathedrals of Ireland,

chosen periodically by the chapter out of their own body, whose office

is to manage the common estate of the cathedral, to see to the necessary

repairs, pay the church officers, &c.—_Jebb._

ECONOMY ESTATE, or FUND. In some Irish cathedrals the common fund, for

the support of the fabric, the payment of the inferior church officers,

and sometimes certain members of the choir, is so called. It is not

divisible among the cathedral body themselves. About half the cathedrals

in Ireland are destitute of any common or corporate fund

whatever.—_Jebb._

ECUMENICAL. (From οἰκουμένη, _the world_.) A term applied to general

councils of the Church, to distinguish them from provincial and diocesan

synods. (See _Councils_.)

EDIFICATION. Literally, _a building up_; and in the figurative language

of the New Testament, a growing in grace and holiness, whether of

individuals or of the Church.

A pretence of greater edification has been a common ground of separation

from the Church; but most absurdly, for “edification,” says Dean

Sherlock, in his resolution of some cases of conscience which respect

Church communion, is building up, and is applied to the Church,

considered as GOD’S house and temple; and it is an odd way of building

up the temple of GOD, by dividing and separating the parts of it from

each other. The most proper signification of the word which our

translators render by “edification,” is a house or building; and this is

the proper sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church: “ye are

GOD’S husbandry, ye are GOD’S building,” that is, the Church is GOD’S

house or building. Thus the same apostle tells us that in CHRIST, “the

whole building” (that is, the whole Christian Church) “fitly framed

together, groweth unto an holy temple in the LORD.” (Ephes. ii. 21.)

Hence the governors of the Church are called builders, and the apostles

are called “labourers together with GOD,” in erecting this spiritual

building; and St. Paul calls himself a “master builder.” Hence the

increase, growth, and advances towards perfection in the Church, is

called the building or edification of it. For this reason, St. Paul

commends prophecy, or expounding the Scriptures, before speaking in

unknown tongues without an interpreter, because by this the Church

receives building or edification.

All those spiritual gifts, which were bestowed on the Christians, were

for the building and edifying of the Church. The apostolical power in

Church censures was “for edification, not for destruction” (2 Cor. x.

8); to build, and not to pull down; that is, to preserve the unity of

the Church entire, and its communion pure. And we may observe, that this

edification is primarily applied to the Church: “that the Church may

receive edifying;” “that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church;”

“for the edifying of the body of CHRIST.” (1 Cor. xiv. 5, 12; Ephes. iv.

12.) And it is very observable wherein the apostle places the

edification of the body of CHRIST, viz. in unity and love: “till we all

come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the SON of GOD,

to a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of

CHRIST.” (Ephes. iv. 12, 13.) Till we are united by one faith unto one

body, and perfect man, and “speaking the truth in love, may grow up into

him in all things, which is the head, even CHRIST; from whom the whole

body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint

supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every

part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”

(Ephes. iv. 15, 16.) This is an admirable description of the unity of

the Church, in which all the parts are closely united and compacted

together, as stones and timber are to make one house; and thus they grow

into one body, and increase in mutual love and charity, which is the

very building and edification of the Church, which is edified and built

up in love, as the apostle adds, that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity

edifieth.” (1 Cor. viii. 1.) This builds up the Church of CHRIST; and

that not such a common charity as we have for all mankind, but such a

love and sympathy as is peculiar to the members of the same body, and

which none but members can have for each other. And now methinks I need

not prove that schism and separation are not for the edification of the

Church; to separate for edification is to pull down instead of building

up. But these men do not seem to have any great regard to the

edification of the Church, but only to their own particular edification:

and we must grant that edification is sometimes applied to particular

Christians in Scripture, according to St. Paul’s exhortation, “Comfort

yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” (1

Thess. v. 11.) And this edifying one another, without question,

signifies our promoting each other’s growth and progress in all

Christian graces and virtues; and so the building and edification of the

Church, signifies the growth and improvement of the Church in all

spiritual wisdom and knowledge, and Christian graces. The edification of

the Church consists in the edification of particular Christians; but

then this is called edification or building, because this growth and

improvement is in the unity and communion of the Church, and makes them

one spiritual house and temple. Thus the Church is called the temple of

GOD, and every particular Christian is GOD’S temple, wherein the HOLY

SPIRIT dwells; and yet God has but one temple, and the HOLY SPIRIT

dwells only in the Church of CHRIST; but particular Christians are GOD’S

temple, and the HOLY SPIRIT dwells in them as living members of the

Christian Church; and thus by the same reason the Church is edified and

built up, as it grows into a spiritual house and holy temple, by a firm

and close union and communion of all its parts: and every Christian is

edified, as he grows up in all Christian graces and virtues in the unity

of the Church. And, therefore, whatever extraordinary means of

edification men may fancy to themselves in a separation, the apostle

knew no edification but in the communion of the Church; and indeed, if

our growth and increase in all grace and virtue be more owing to the

internal assistance of the DIVINE SPIRIT, than to the external

administrations, as St. Paul tells us, “I have planted and Apollos

watered, but GOD gave the increase; so then, neither is he that planteth

anything, nor he that watereth, but GOD that giveth the increase” (1

Cor. iii. 6, 7); and if the DIVINE SPIRIT confines his influences and

operations to the unity of the Church, as the same apostle tells us that

there is but “one body and one spirit,” (Eph. iv. 4,) which plainly

signifies that the operations of this one spirit are appropriated to

this one body, as the soul is to the body it animates;—then it does not

seem a very likely way for edification, to cut ourselves off from the

unity of CHRIST’S body.

ELDERS. (πρεσβύτεροι, hence Presbyterians.) Presbyterian sects have

supposed that the order of _lay-elders_, as they denominate some of

their officers, is sanctioned by Holy Scripture. It appears certain,

however, that the “elders” mentioned by St. Paul (1 Tim. v.) did not

hold the same office as those in the Presbyterian sects, but “laboured

in the word and doctrine.” In this place the apostle means only

ministers, when he directs that double honour should be paid to the

elders that rule well, especially those who labour in the word and

doctrine; and the distinction does not appear to consist in the order of

officers, but in the degree of their diligence, faithfulness, and

eminence in laboriously fulfilling their ministerial duties. It is said

that Calvin admitted lay-elders into Church courts, on what he conceived

to be the sanction of primitive practice, and, as an effectual method of

preventing the return of inordinate power in a superior order of the

clergy. To this it is answered by Catholics, that neither the name nor

office of lay-elder was ever known to any general or provincial council,

or even to any particular Church in the world, before the time of

Calvin. (See _Presbyterians_.)

ELECTION. (See _Predestination_, _Calvinism_, _Armininnism_.) There are

three views taken of election, all parties agreeing that _some_ doctrine

of election is taught in Holy Scripture,—the Calvinistic, the Arminian,

and the Catholic.

By the Calvinists, (see _Calvinism_,) election is judged to be the

election of certain individuals out of the great mass of mankind,

directly and immediately, to eternal life, while all other individuals

are either passively left, or actively doomed, to a certainty of eternal

death; and the moving cause of that election is defined to be GOD’S

unconditional and irrespective will and pleasure, inherent in, and

exercised in consequence of, his absolute and uncontrollable

sovereignty.

By the Arminians, or Remonstrants, (see _Arminianism_,) Scriptural

election is pronounced to be the election of certain individuals, out of

the great mass of mankind, directly and immediately to eternal life; and

the moving cause of that election is asserted to be GOD’S eternal

prevision of the future persevering holiness and consequent moral

fitness of the individuals themselves, who thence have been thus

elected.

Election under the gospel or Catholic view denotes, the election of

various individuals into the pale of the visible Church, with GOD’S

merciful purpose, that through faith and holiness they should attain

everlasting glory, but with a possibility (since GOD governs his

intelligent creatures on moral principles only) that through their own

perverseness they may fail of attaining it.

Stanley Faber, from whose learned and most satisfactory work these

definitions are taken, very clearly proves this to be the doctrine of

the reformed Church of England; where, in the seventeenth Article, the

Church of England, speaking of predestination to life, teaches not an

election of certain individuals, either absolute or previsional,

directly and immediately, to eternal happiness. But she teaches an

election of certain individuals into the Church catholic, in order that

there, according to the everlasting purpose and morally operating

intention of GOD, they may be delivered from curse and damnation, and

thus, indirectly and mediately, may be brought, through CHRIST, to

everlasting glory; agreeably to GOD’S promises, as they are generically,

not specifically, set forth to us in Holy Scripture.

That such is the real doctrine of the Church of England—in other words,

that she teaches a predestination to life, not direct and immediate, but

indirect and mediate—inevitably follows from the circumstance that,

while in her sixteenth Article she hints at the possibility of the elect

individually departing from grace given, in her Homilies and in her

Burial Service, she distinctly states, that the elect, in her sense of

the word, may, in their individual capacity, fall away utterly, and thus

perish finally. Now, this statement is palpably incompatible with the

tenet of a direct and immediate predestination of individuals to eternal

life; for individuals, so predestinated, could not, by the very terms of

their predestination, fall away utterly and irrecoverably. Therefore,

the predestination to life, mentioned in the seventeenth Article, can

only mean an indirect and mediate predestination of individuals; or, in

other words, it can only mean a predestination of individuals to eternal

life, through the medium of election into the Catholic Church; in GOD’S

everlasting purpose and intention indeed; but still, (since GOD, in

executing his purpose and intention, operates upon the minds of his

intelligent creatures not physically, but morally,) with a possibility

of their defeating that merciful purpose and intention, and thence of

their finally falling away to everlasting destruction.

As the article, in connexion with the other documents of the Anglican

Church, must, unless we place them in irreconcilable collision with each

other, be understood to propound the doctrine of predestination after

the manner and in the sense which has been specified; so it distinctly

enjoins us to receive GOD’S promises, as they are generally set forth to

us in Holy Scripture.

The word _generally_ in this place is not opposed to _unusually_, but to

_particularly_, and signifies generically. And the other documents of

the Church of England agree with this interpretation of the seventeenth

Article.

We may refer, in the first instance, to the peculiar phraseology

introduced into the office of Infant Baptism. “Regard, we beseech thee,

the supplications of thy congregation: sanctify this water to the

mystical washing away of sin: and grant that this child, now to be

baptized therein, may receive the fulness of thy grace, and ever remain

in the number of thy faithful and elect children, through JESUS CHRIST

our LORD.”

Thus, in systematically generalizing phraseology, runs the prayer. Now

the same prayer is recited over every child. Consequently, by the

inevitable force of the word “remain” as here used, every child,

baptismally brought into the pale of the Church, is declared to be, at

that time, one of the number of GOD’S elect.

But the largest charity cannot believe that every child, baptismally

brought into the pale of the Church, is elect in the sense of election

as jointly maintained by Calvin and Arminius.

Therefore, agreeably to the tenor of her own explicit phraseology, the

idea which the English Church annexes to the term election, can only be

that of ecclesiastical individual election.

The matter is yet additionally established by the parallel phraseology,

which occurs in the somewhat more modern office of Adult Baptism.

With the sole requisite alteration of “this person” for “this child,”

the prayer is copied verbatim from the older office. Every adult,

therefore, who is baptismally introduced into the pale of the Church,

is, as such, declared to be one of the number of GOD’S elect people.

The same matter is still further established by the strictly homogeneous

language of the Catechism.

Each questioned catechumen, who, as an admitted member of the Church,

has already, in the baptismal office, been declared to be one of the

elect, is directed to reply: that, as a chief article of the faith

propounded in the Creed, he has learned “to believe in GOD the HOLY

GHOST, who sanctifieth” him “and all the elect people of GOD.”

Now, such an answer plainly makes every catechumen declare himself to be

one of the elect.

But, in no conceivable sense which will harmonize with the general

phraseology of the Anglican Church, save in that of ecclesiastical

individual election only, can every catechumen be deemed one of GOD’S

elect people.

Therefore the idea which to the Scriptural term election, is annexed by

the Church of England, is that of ecclesiastical individual election.

The matter is also established by the parallel phraseology introduced

into the Burial Service.

“We beseech thee, that it may please thee, of thy gracious goodness,

shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy

kingdom; that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of

thy holy name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body

and soul, in thy eternal and everlasting glory, through JESUS CHRIST our

LORD.”

In this prayer, the generic term “we” occurs in immediate connexion with

“the number of thine _elect_.”

Therefore the evidently studied arrangement of the words, enforces the

conclusion that every member of the Church, as designated by the term

“we,” must be deemed one of GOD’S elect people.

Finally, the same matter is established, even in the familiar course of

daily recitation, by the language of the very liturgy itself.

“Endue thy ministers with righteousness: and make thy chosen people

joyful.

“O LORD, save thy people: and bless thine inheritance.”

Now, who are the “chosen people,” whom the LORD is here supplicated to

“make joyful?”

Can we reasonably pronounce them, in the judgment of the Anglican

Church, to be certain individuals of each actually praying congregation,

who, in contradistinction to other individuals of the same congregation,

are predestinated, either absolutely or previsionally, to eternal life?

Assuredly, the whole context forbids so incongruous a supposition; for,

assuredly, the whole context requires us to pronounce, that “thy chosen

people” are identical with “thine inheritance.”

But the entire tenor of the liturgy identifies “thine inheritance” with

the Catholic Church.

Therefore, “thy chosen people” and the Catholic Church are terms, in

point of import, identical. (See _Perseverance_.)

ELECTION OF BISHOPS. (See _Bishops_.)

ELEMENTS. The materials used in the sacraments, appointed for that

purpose by our LORD himself. Thus water is the element of baptism, and

bread and wine are the elements of the eucharist. With respect to the

elements of the eucharist, it is ordered by the Church of England that,

“when there is a communion, the priest shall then place upon the table

so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient;” _Then_, that is,

after the offertory, and after presenting the basin with the alms. This

rubric being added to our liturgy at the last review, at the same time

with the word “oblations,” in the prayer following, it is clearly

evident, as Bishop Patrick has observed, that by that word are to be

understood the elements of bread and wine, which the priest is to offer

solemnly to _God_ as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty over his

creatures, and that from henceforth they might become properly and

peculiarly his. For in all the Jewish sacrifices, of which the people

were partakers, the viands or materials of the feast were first made

GOD’S by a solemn oblation, and then afterwards eaten by the

communicants, not as man’s, but as GOD’S provisions, who by thus

entertaining them at his own table, declared himself reconciled, and

again in covenant with them. And therefore our blessed SAVIOUR, when he

instituted the new sacrament of his own body and blood, first gave

thanks and blessed the elements; that is, offered them up to GOD as LORD

of the creatures, as the most ancient Fathers expound that passage; who

for that reason, whenever they celebrated the holy eucharist, always

offered the bread and wine for the communion to GOD upon the altar by

this or some short ejaculation: “LORD, we offer thee thine own out of

what thou hast bountifully given us.” After which they received them

into the sacred banquet of the body and blood of his dear Son.

In the ancient Church they had generally a side table, or _prothesis_,

near the altar, upon which the elements were laid till the first part of

the communion service was over. Now, though we have not always a side

table, and there is no express provision for one made in the Church of

England, yet in the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI., the

priest himself was ordered, in this place, to set both bread and wine

upon the altar; but at the review in 1551, this and several other pious

usages were thrown out, in condescension to ultra-Protestant

superstition. (See _Credence_.) After which the Scotch liturgy was the

first wherein we find it restored; and Mr. Mede having observed our

liturgy to be defective in this particular, was probably the occasion,

that, in the review of it after the Restoration, this primitive practice

was restored, and the bread and wine ordered by the rubric to be set

solemnly on the table by the priest himself. It appears, indeed, that

the traditional practice of the immediately preceding times maintained

its ground in many places after the alteration of the rubric; (see

_Hicke’s Treatises_, i. 127–129, 322–324;) but the history of the change

gives so marked a character to our present rubric, that a neglect of it

is clearly a violation of the priest’s obligation to conformity. If the

priest thus offends the consciences of the more enlightened members of a

congregation, they should point out to him his mistake, which can only

proceed from traditional negligence. In the coronation service of Queen

Victoria, after the reading of the sentences in the Offertory, this

rubric occurs. “And first the Queen offers bread and wine for the

communion, which being brought out of King Edward’s chapel, and

delivered into her hands, the bread upon the paten by the bishop who

read the Epistle, and the wine in the chalice by the bishop that read

the Gospel, are by the archbishop received from the Queen, and

reverently placed upon the altar, and decently covered with a fair linen

cloth, the archbishop first saying this prayer,” &c. (See _Oblation_ and

_Offertory_.)—See _Wheatly_.

ELEVATION. In architecture, a representation of a building, or of any

portion of it, as it would appear if it were possible that the eye

should be exactly opposite every part of it at the same time.

ELEVATION OF THE HOST. This Romish ceremony, condemned in our

twenty-fifth Article, is not, comparatively speaking, an ancient rite.

The Roman ritualists, Bona, Merati, Benedict XIV., Le Brun, &c.,

acknowledge that there is no trace of its existence before the eleventh

or twelfth century in the West. The Ordo Romanus, Amalarius, Walafrid

Strabo, and Micrologus, make no mention of the rite, though the last of

these ritualists lived at the end of the eleventh century. The truth is,

that no certain documents refer to it until the beginning of the

thirteenth century, but it may possibly have existed in some places in

the twelfth. The synodical constitutions of Odo de Sulli, bishop of

Paris, about 1200, appoint this elevation, and it was probably then

first introduced into the diocese of Paris. Innocent III., who wrote on

the ceremonies of the mass at the beginning of the thirteenth century,

does not speak of it; but, in the time of Honorius III., it had come

into use, for he mentions it in an epistle to the Latin bishops of the

patriarchate of Antioch, A. D. 1219, where he commands that, at the

elevation, the people should reverently bow. “Sacerdos quilibet

frequenter doceat plebem suam, ut cum in celebratione missarum elevatur

hostia salutaris, quilibet reverenter inclinet.” This was inserted in

the decretals (c. _sane_ de celebratione missarum) by Gregory IX., his

successor, and thus became the law of the West. It is spoken of by

Bonaventure, Durand, and the Council of Lambeth, in the latter part of

the same century; and Cardinal Guido is said to have introduced this

rite, or some part of it, at Cologne, about 1265.

We know then, that, in the thirteenth century, the host was elevated,

and the people bowed or knelt at the same time. But if we are to judge

by the authorities referred to by the Roman ritualists themselves, the

writers of that and the following ages did not always interpret this as

designed for the adoration of the elements, or even of CHRIST in the

eucharist. Bonaventure (A. D. 1270) assigns eight reasons for the

elevation, some of which relate to the duty or dispositions of the

people on the occasion; but he does not notice the adoration of the

elements. William, bishop of Paris, about 1220, ordered a bell to be

rung at the elevation, that the people might be excited to pray: not to

worship the host. “Præcipitur quod in celebratione missarum, quando

corpus CHRISTI elevatur, in ipsa elevatione, vel paulo ante, campana

pulsetur, sicut alias fuit statutum, ut sic mentes fidelium ad orationem

excitentur.” Cardinal Guido (A. D. 1265) ordained, that at the elevation

all the people should pray for pardon. “Bonam illic consuetudinem

instituit, ut ad elevationem hostiæ omnis populus in ecclesia ad sonitum

nolæ veniam peteret, sicque usque ad calicis benedictionem prostratus

jaceret.” The synod of Cologne (A. D. 1536) explained the people’s duty

at the elevation to consist, in remembering the LORD’S death, and

returning him thanks with minds raised to heaven. “Post elevationem

consecrati corporis ac sanguinis Domini ... tum videretur silendum, et

ab omni populo mortis Dominicæ commemoratio habenda, prostratisque humi

corporibus, animis in cœlum erectis, gratiæ agendæ CHRISTO Redemptori,

qui nos sanguine suo lavit morteque redemit.”

On the other hand, Durand, (1286,) Lyndwood, (1430,) the diocesan synod

of Augsburg, (1548,) and Cardinal Hosius, one of the papal legates at

the synod of Trent, understood the prostration of the people as designed

for the adoration of CHRIST as present in the eucharist. Certainly this

has latterly become the common opinion, but from what has been said

above it appears that, before the Reformation, and afterwards, many

persons at the elevation directed their worship to GOD and CHRIST

simply, without any exclusive reference to the presence of CHRIST in the

eucharist.—_Palmer._

EMBER DAYS. These are the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, after the

first Sunday in Lent, the feast of Whitsunday, the 14th of September,

and the 13th of December, all being fasting days; the Sundays following

these days being the stated times of ordination in the Church. It is to

be remarked, that the Sunday in December which begins the Ember week is

always the third Sunday in Advent. The week in which these days fall are

called Ember week. But as Sunday begins the week, the Ember collect is

always to be read on the Sunday preceding the Ember days, not on that

which follows them, as is sometimes erroneously done.

The derivation of the name is uncertain. It has been supposed by some to

signify “ashes,” and by others “abstinence,” in allusion to the ancient

custom connected with fasting. The fact that the Ember weeks return at

stated periods, has led others to trace the name to a Saxon word

signifying a “course,” or “cycle.” In the Western Church they were

denominated “the Fasts of the Four Seasons:” and from this comes

another, and perhaps the most probable, illustration—the Latin _quatuor

tempora_ (four seasons) being abbreviated into the German _quatemper_ or

_quatember_, and again, into the English _ember_. On these days the

design of the Church is to call her members, by prayer and fasting, to

invoke the Divine aid and blessing on the choice and commission of

ministers of the gospel. The deep interest every Christian heart should

feel in a matter of such infinite moment, should secure for these days

the pious observance of the members of the Church.

EMBLEM. A visible, and usually an ornamental, symbol of some spiritual

thing; of some great truth concerning the object of a Christian’s

worship, of some object of his faith and hope, or of some mystery or

privilege.

The use of emblems, under which the truths of Christianity were veiled

from the heathen, while they were presented vividly to the minds of the

faithful, is probably as old as Christianity itself: and the fancy of

pious persons has continued it to the present day; many particular

emblems having been so generally and almost universally used, as to have

been interwoven almost with the very external habit of the Church

itself. Among the most apt and venerable may be mentioned, the trine

compass, (as it is called by Chaucer,)

“That of the trine compas Lord and gide is,”

or a circle inscribed within an equilateral triangle; denoting the

co-equality and co-eternity of the three Divine persons in the ever

blessed and undivided Trinity: the hand extended from the clouds in the

attitude of benediction, for the first Person in the Trinity: the Lamb

triumphant, the fish, (see _Piscis_,) the pelican wounding her own

breast to feed her young, and others, for the SON of GOD, JESUS CHRIST

our LORD: the dove, for the HOLY GHOST. The chalice receiving the blood

of the wounded Lamb, for the holy eucharist: the phœnix rising from the

flames, for the resurrection: the cross, for the Christian’s life of

conflict; the crown, for his hope of glory. All these are beautifully

significant, and are very innocent in their use, as well as pious in

their intention.

It is of the essence of a proper emblem that it be not, nor pretend to

be, a simple representation. It then loses its allusive character, and

becomes a mere picture of the thing itself. In theology there is another

reason why this should be avoided: for when we attempt a representation

of any object of Christian worship, we too nearly fall into idolatry.

Hence the cross is admissible where the crucifix is not: and the not

unfrequent representation of the Holy Trinity, in which the FATHER is

represented as a man, supporting the LORD JESUS on the cross, is

shocking to the reverent eye. For the like reasons the representations

of the holy eucharist, under the old figure of a crucifix pouring blood

into four cups placed to receive it, is very objectionable.

With regard to the use of emblems, they still afford very happy

ornaments for churches and church furniture, especially perhaps for

painted windows. In the primitive Church, the pious sometimes carried

them on their persons. Clement of Alexandria has mentioned some which we

ought to avoid, and others which we may employ; of which latter we may

name a dove, a fish, a ship borne along by a full breeze, and an anchor.

As the reason of the rule which he gives still holds, we may refer to

his _Pædag._ iii. 11.

EMMANUEL, or IMMANUEL. A Hebrew word, which signifies “GOD with us.”

Isaiah, (vii. 14,) in that celebrated prophecy, in which he foretells to

Ahaz the birth of the MESSIAH from a virgin, says, This child shall be

called EMMANUEL, GOD with us. He repeats this while speaking of the

enemy’s army, which, like a torrent, was to overflow Judea: “The

stretching of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O EMMANUEL.”

St. Matthew (i. 23) informs us, that this prophecy was accomplished in

the birth of CHRIST, born of the Virgin Mary, in whom the two natures,

Divine and human, were united; so that he was really EMMANUEL, or “GOD

with us.”

ENCŒNIA. Festivals anciently kept on the days on which cities were

built, or churches consecrated; and in later times, ceremonies renewed

at certain periods, as at Oxford and Cambridge, at the celebration of

founders and benefactors.

ENCRATITES, or CONTINENTS. A name given to a sect in the second century,

because they condemned marriage, forbade the eating of flesh or drinking

of wine, and rejected with a sort of horror all the comforts and

conveniences of life. Tatian, an Assyrian, and a disciple of Justin

Martyr, was the leader of this sect. He was greatly distinguished for

his genius and learning, and the excessive austerity of his life and

manners. He regarded matter as the fountain of all evil, and therefore

recommended in a peculiar manner the mortification of the body. He

distinguished the Creator of the world from the Supreme Being, denied

the reality of CHRIST’S body, and blended the Christian religion with

several corrupt tenets of the Oriental philosophy.

ENERGUMENS, DEMONIACS, from ἐνεργουμένοι, which in the largest sense

denotes persons under the motion or operation of any spirit whatever,

good or bad; but, in a restrained sense, is used by ecclesiastical

writers to denote persons whose bodies are possessed by an evil spirit.

Mention is often made in the primitive Church, of persons possessed of

an evil spirit. The regulations of the Church bestowed upon them special

care. They constituted a distinct class of Christians, bearing some

relation both to the catechumens and the faithful; but differing from

both in this, that they were under the special oversight and direction

of exorcists, while they took part in some of the religious exercises of

both classes.

Catechumens who, during their probationary exercises, became demoniacs,

were never baptized until thoroughly healed, except in case of extreme

sickness. Believers who became demoniacs, in the worst stage of their

disease, like the weeping penitents, were not permitted to enter the

church; but were retained under close inspection in the outer porch.

When partially recovered they were permitted, with the _audientes_, to

join in public worship, but they were not permitted to partake of the

eucharist until wholly restored, except in the immediate prospect of

death. In general, the energumens were subject to the same rules as the

penitents.—_Bingham._

ENGLAND. (See _Church of England_.)

ENOCH, THE PROPHECY OF. An apocryphal book, of which there remains but a

few fragments.

Enoch was certainly one of the most illustrious prophets of the first

world, since Moses says of him, that he “walked with GOD.” (Gen. v. 24.)

This prophet is famed in the Church for two things: the first is, his

being taken up into heaven without seeing death (Heb. xi. 5); the second

is, his Prophecy, a passage of which St. Jude has cited in his Epistle.

(Ver. 14.) The ancients greatly esteemed the Prophecy of Enoch.

Tertullian expresses his concern, that it was not generally received in

the world. That Father, on the authority of this book, deduces the

original of idolatry, astrology, and unlawful arts, from the revolted

angels, who married with the daughters of men. And it is on the

testimony of this book, that the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries,

as Irenæus, Cyprian, Lactantius, received for true this fable of the

marriage of the angels with the daughters of men. St. Augustine, who was

less credulous, allows, indeed, that Enoch wrote something divine

because he is cited by St. Jude; but he says, it was not without reason

that this book was not inserted in the Canon, which was preserved in the

temple of Jerusalem, and committed to the care of the sacrificators. St.

Augustine sufficiently insinuates, that the authority of this book is

doubtful, and that it cannot be proved that it was really written by

Enoch. Indeed the account it gives of giants engendered by angels, and

not by men, has manifestly the air of a fable; and the most judicious

critics believe it ought not to be ascribed to Enoch. _De Habitu

Mulier._ c. iii. _De Civit. Dei_, lib. xv. c. 23.

This apocryphal book lay a long time buried in darkness; till the

learned Joseph Scaliger recovered a part of it. That author gives us

some considerable fragments of it, in his notes on the chronicle of

Eusebius; particularly in relation to the above-mentioned story of the

marriage of the angels with the daughters of men.

Scaliger, Isaac Vossius, and other learned men, attribute this work to

one of those Jews, who lived in the times between the Babylonish

captivity and our Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Others are of opinion, it was

written after the rise and establishment of Christianity, by one of

those fanatics, with whom the primitive Church was filled, who made a

ridiculous mixture of the Platonic philosophy and the Christian

divinity: such as the authors, or forgers, of the Sibylline Oracles, the

Dialogues of Hermes Trismegistus, and the like. The reasons of this

opinion are these. 1. The original of the book is Greek; and therefore

it was not composed by any Jew, living in Judea, or Chaldea; for they

always wrote in Hebrew, or in some of its dialects. 2. It is evident the

author was a Christian, because he makes perpetual allusions to the

texts of the New Testament. It is therefore, probably, the invention of

some Christian, who took occasion from the Epistle of St. Jude to forge

this work. As for St. Jude himself, it is probable he cites what

concerns the general judgment, not from any book then subsisting under

the name of Enoch, but from tradition.—_Jurieu, Hist. des Dogmes et

Cultes_, part i. c. 4.

ENTHRONISATION. (See _Bishop_.) The placing of a bishop in his stall or

throne in his cathedral.

A distinction is sometimes made between the enthronisation of an

archbishop and a bishop, the latter being called _installation_: but

this appears to be a mere refinement of the middle ages, of which we

have many such.—_Jebb._

EPACT. In chronology, and in the tables for the calculation of Easter, a

number indicating the excess of the solar above the lunar year. The

solar year consisting, in round numbers, of 365 days, and the lunar of

twelve months, of twenty-nine and a half days each, or 354 days, there

will be an overplus in the solar year of eleven days, and this

constitutes the _Epact_. In other words, the epact of any year expresses

the number of days from the last new moon of the old year (which was the

beginning of the present lunar year) to the first of January. In the

first year, therefore, it will be 0; in the second 11 days; in the third

twice 11 or 22; and in the fourth it would be 11 days more, or 33; but

30 days being a synodical month, will in that year be intercalated,

making thirteen synodical months, and the remaining three is then the

epact. In the following year, 11 will again be added, making fourteen

for the epact, and so on to the end of the cycle, adding 11 to the epact

of the last year, and always rejecting thirty, by counting it as an

additional month. The epact is inserted in the table of moveable feasts

in the Prayer Book.

EPHOD, a sort of ornament or upper garment, worn by the Hebrew priests.

The word ‏אפוד‎, _ephod_, is derived from ‏אפד‎, _aphad_, which

signifies to _gird_, or _tie_, for the ephod was a kind of girdle which,

brought from behind the neck, and over the two shoulders, and hanging

down before, was put cross upon the stomach; then carried round the

waist, and made use of as a girdle to the tunic. There were two sorts of

ephods, one of plain linen for the priests, and another embroidered for

the high priest. As there was nothing singular in that used by common

priests, Moses does not dwell upon the description of it, but of that

belonging to the high priest he gives us a large and particular account.

(Exod. xxviii. 6, &c.) It was composed of gold, blue, purple, crimson,

and twisted cotton: upon that part of it which passed over the shoulders

were two large precious stones, one on each shoulder, upon which were

engraven the names of the twelve tribes, six upon each stone; and, where

the ephod crossed upon the high priest’s breast, there was a square

ornament called the pectoral, or breastplate.

St. Jerome observes, that the ephod was peculiar to the priesthood; and

it was an opinion among the Jews, that no sort of worship, true or

false, could subsist without a priesthood and ephod. Thus Micah, having

made an idol and placed it in his house, did not fail to make an ephod

for it. (Judges xvii. 5.) God foretold by Hosea, (iii. 4,) that the

Israelites should be for a long time without kings, princes, sacrifices,

altar, ephod, and teraphim; and Isaiah, speaking of the false gods who

were worshipped by the Israelites, ascribes ephods to them.

The ephod is often taken for the pectoral or breastplate, and for the

Urim and Thummim, which were fastened to it, because all this belonged

to the ephod, and made but one piece with it. Though the ephod was

properly an ecclesiastical habit, yet we find it sometimes worn by

laymen. Samuel, though a Levite only, and a child, wore a linen ephod.

(1 Sam. ii. 18.) And David, in the ceremony of removing the ark from the

house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, was girt with a linen ephod. (2 Sam.

vi. 14.) The Levites regularly were not allowed to wear the ephod; but

in the time of Agrippa, as we are told by Josephus, a little time before

the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Levites obtained of that

prince permission to wear the linen stole as well as the priests. The

historian observes, that this was an innovation contrary to the laws of

their country, which were never struck at with impunity.

Spencer and Cunæus are of opinion, that the Jewish kings had a right to

wear the ephod, because David coming to Ziglag, and finding that the

Amalekites had plundered the city, and carried away his and the people’s

wives, ordered Abiathar the high priest to bring him the ephod, which

being done, David inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I pursue after

this troop?” &c. (1 Sam. xxx. 8); whence they infer that David consulted

GOD by Urim and Thummim, and consequently put on the ephod. The

generality of commentators believe, that David did not dress himself in

the high priest’s ephod, and that the text signifies no more than that

the king ordered Abiathar to put on the ephod, and consult GOD for him.

The ephod of Gideon is remarkable for having become the occasion of a

new kind of idolatry to the Israelites. (Judges viii. 27.) What this

consisted in, is matter of dispute among the learned. Some authors are

of opinion that this ephod, as it is called, was an idol; others, that

it was only a trophy in memory of that signal victory; and that the

Israelites paid a kind of Divine worship to it, so that Gideon was the

innocent cause of their idolatry; in like manner as Moses was, when he

made the brazen serpent, which came afterwards to be worshipped.

EPIGONATON. An appendage of a lozenge shape, somewhat resembling a small

maniple, worn on the right side, depending from the girdle. It is

considered to represent the napkin with which our blessed LORD girded

himself at the last supper, and has embroidered on it either a cross or

the head of our LORD. In the Romish Church its use is confined to the

pope. In the Greek Church it is used by all bishops. The epigonaton does

not occur in the sacerdotal vestments of the English Church.—_Palmer._

EPIPHANY. The epiphany, or manifestation of CHRIST to the Gentiles, is

commemorated in the Church on the 6th of January, and denotes the day on

which the wise men came from the East to worship the infant JESUS.

(Matt. ii. 2.) Let us be thankful for the light of the gospel, which on

that day began to shine on those who sat in darkness. (Isa. ix. 2; Matt.

iv. 16.)

The word epiphany is derived from the compound verb ἐπιφαίνω, which

signifies to _manifest_ or _declare_. The Epiphany is observed as a

scarlet day at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

The feast of Epiphany was not, originally, a distinct festival, but made

a part of that of the nativity of CHRIST; which being celebrated twelve

days, the first and last of which, according to the custom of the Jews

in their feasts, were high or chief days of solemnity, either of these

might fitly be called Epiphany, as that word signifies the appearance of

CHRIST in the world.

This festival was, in one respect, more taken notice of, in the Greek

Church, than the Nativity itself, being allowed as one of the three

solemn times of baptism, which the Nativity was not; a privilege which

it wanted in the Latin Church. St. Chrysostom tells us, that, this being

likewise the day of our SAVIOUR’S baptism, it was usual to carry home

water, at midnight, from the church, and that it would remain as fresh

and uncorrupt for one, two, or three years, as if immediately drawn from

the spring.—_Homil. 24, de Bapt. Christi._

Theodosius the Younger gave this festival an honourable place among

those days, on which the public games were not allowed; and Justinian

made it a day of vacation from all pleadings at law, as well as from

popular pleasures. It is to be observed, likewise, that those to whom

the care of the Paschal cycle, or rule for finding Easter, was

committed, were obliged, on or about the time of Epiphany, to give

public notice when Easter and Lent were to be kept the ensuing

year.—_Cod. Theod._ lib. xv. tit. 5, leg. 5. _Cod. Just._ lib. iii. tit.

12, leg. 6.

EPISCOPACY. (See _Bishops_ and _Orders_.) The ancient apostolical form

of Church government, consisting in the superintendency of one over

several other church officers. Bishops were always allowed to be of an

order superior to presbyters; and, indeed, having all the powers that

presbyters have, and some more peculiar to themselves, they must be of a

different order necessarily. It is their peculiar office to ordain,

which never was allowed to presbyters; and, anciently, the presbyter

acted in dependence upon the bishop in the administration of the LORD’S

supper and baptism, and even in preaching, in such manner that he could

not do it regularly without the bishop’s approbation.

Our Church asserts, in the preface to the Ordinal, that the order of

bishops was “from the apostles’ time;” referring us to those texts of

Scripture occurring in the history of the Acts, and the apostolical

Epistles, which are usually urged for the proof of the episcopal order.

And of a great many which might be alleged these are some. In the short

history which we have of the apostles, we find them exercising all the

peculiar offices of the episcopal order. They ordain church ministers:

“And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.)

They confirm baptized persons: “Who, when they were come down, prayed

for them, that they might receive the HOLY GHOST” (viii. 15). They

excommunicate notorious offenders, as the incestuous person. (1 Cor. v.

5.) The like episcopal powers we find in Scripture committed to others,

whom, from the tenor of Scripture, and the testimony of antiquity, we

judge to have been advanced to that order. Not only a power of

ordination, but a particular charge in conferring it, is given to

Timothy; namely, that he “lay hands suddenly on no man.” (1 Tim. v. 22.)

That he caution the presbyters under him “that they teach no other

doctrine” (i. 3). Rules are given him how he should animadvert on an

offending presbyter: “Against an elder receive not an accusation but

before two or three witnesses,” (v. 19,) and to what conduct he should

oblige the deacons (iii. 8). The same episcopal powers are committed to

Titus, to “ordain elders in every city,” (Tit. i. 5,) and to

excommunicate heretics after the first or second admonition (iii. 10).

Now these are very good proofs to all reasonable men that diligently

read the Holy Scriptures, that the order of bishops was inclusively

“from,” that is, in, “the apostles’ time.”

But to all diligent and impartial readers of ancient writers the case is

yet more out of doubt. The earliest ecclesiastical writer extant is

Clemens Romanus, who wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians within

forty years after our SAVIOUR’S ascension. And he speaks not only of

presbyters and deacons, but of bishops likewise, as an order in use in

his time, clearly distinguishing also between the two orders of bishops

and presbyters. In the epistles of Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch

seventy years after CHRIST, in which he continued forty years, being

martyred in the year of our LORD 108, just seven years after St. John’s

death, all the three orders are clearly and exactly distinguished. Of

lower authorities the instances are innumerable. Clement of Alexandria

wrote in the latter end of the second century; and he mentions the three

orders as the established use of the Church in his time. Origen, who

lived at the same time, uses corresponding language. Tertullian likewise

mentions these three orders as established ranks of the hierarchy. And

so infinite other authors make these three orders perfectly

distinct.—_Dr. Nicholls._

Of the distinction among the governors of the Church there was never in

ancient times made any question; nor did it seem disputable in the

Church, except to one malcontent, Aërius, who did indeed get a name in

story, but never made much noise, or obtained any vogue in the world.

Very few followers he found in his heterodoxy. No great body even of

heretics could find cause to dissent from the Church in this point. But

all Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, Donatists, &c. maintained the

distinction of orders among themselves, and acknowledged the duty of the

inferior clergy to their bishops. And no wonder; seeing it standeth upon

so very firm and clear grounds; upon the reason of the case, upon the

testimony of Holy Scripture, upon general tradition, and unquestionable

monuments of antiquity, upon the common judgment and practice of the

greatest saints, persons most renowned for wisdom and piety in the

Church.

Reason doth plainly require such subordinations. This all experience

attesteth; this even the chief impugners of episcopal presidency do by

their practice confess, who for prevention of disorders have been fain,

of their own heads, to devise ecclesiastical subordination of classes,

provinces, and nations; and to appoint moderators, or temporary bishops,

in their assemblies. So that reason hath forced the dissenters from the

Church to imitate it.

The Holy Scripture also doth plainly enough countenance this

distinction. For therein we have represented one “angel” presiding over

principal churches, which contained several presbyters, (Rev. ii. 1,)

&c.: therein we find episcopal ordination and jurisdiction exercised: we

have one bishop constituting presbyters in divers cities of his diocese,

(Tit. i. 5; 1 Tim. v. 1, 17, 19, 20, 22,) &c.; ordering all things

therein concerning ecclesiastical discipline; judging presbyters;

rebuking “with all authority,” or imperiousness, as it were, (Tit. ii.

15,) and reconciling offenders, secluding heretics and scandalous

persons.

In the Jewish Church there were an high priest, chief priest, a

sanhedrim, or senate, or synod.

The government of congregations among GOD’S ancient people, which it is

probable was the pattern that the apostles, no affecters of needless

innovation, did follow in establishing ecclesiastical discipline among

Christians, doth hereto agree; for in their synagogues, answering to our

Christian churches, they had, as their elders and doctors, so over them

an ἀρχισυνάγωγος, the head of the eldership, and president of the

synagogue.

The primitive general use of Christians most effectually doth back the

Scripture, and interpret it in favour of this distinction, scarce less

than demonstrating it constituted by the apostles. For how otherwise is

it imaginable, that all the Churches founded by the apostles in several

most distant and disjointed places, at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at

Alexandria, at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Rome, should presently conspire

in acknowledgment and use of it? How could it, without apparent

confederacy, be formed, how could it creep in without notable clatter,

how could it be admitted without considerable opposition, if it were not

in the foundation of those Churches laid by the apostles? How is it

likely, that in those times of grievous persecution, falling chiefly

upon the bishops, when to be eminent among Christians yielded slender

reward, and exposed to extreme hazard; when to seek pre-eminence was in

effect to court danger and trouble, torture and ruin, an ambition of

irregularly advancing themselves above their brethren should so

generally prevail among the ablest and best Christians? How could those

famous martyrs for the Christian truth be some of them so unconscionable

as to affect, others so irresolute as to yield to, such injurious

encroachments? And how could all the holy Fathers, persons of so

renowned, so approved wisdom and integrity, be so blind as not to

discern such a corruption, or so bad as to abet it? How indeed could all

GOD’S Church be so weak as to consent in judgment, so base as to comply

in practice, with it? In fine, how can we conceive, that all the best

monuments of antiquity down from the beginning, the acts, the epistles,

the histories, the commentaries, the writings of all sorts, coming from

the blessed martyrs and most holy confessors of our faith, should

conspire to abuse us; the which do speak nothing but bishops; long

catalogues and rows of bishops succeeding in this and that city; bishops

contesting for the faith against pagan idolaters and heretical

corrupters of Christian doctrine; bishops here teaching, and planting

our religion by their labours, their suffering, and watering it with

their blood?—_Dr. Isaac Barrow._

It was so well known that a bishop was of a superior order to a

presbyter, that it was deemed sacrilege by the fourth general council to

thrust a bishop down from the first to the second degree. So that,

however persecution and dire necessity may perhaps excuse some late

Churches, for being forced to mix the two first orders, and to have only

priests and deacons; yet we, who have a prescription of above 1600 (now

1700) years for us, even from the apostles’ time, have the right of our

side, and must never depart therefrom.—_Dean Comber._

EPISTLE. The Scriptural Epistles are letters which were addressed by the

inspired apostles to Churches or individuals.

Of these, the apostle Paul wrote fourteen; viz.

1. The Epistle to the Romans.

2. The First Epistle to the Corinthians.

3. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

4. The Epistle to the Galatians.

5. The Epistle to the Ephesians.

6. The Epistle to the Philippians.

7. The Epistle to the Colossians.

8. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians.

9. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.

10. The First Epistle to Timothy.

11. The Second Epistle to Timothy.

12. The Epistle to Titus.

13. The Epistle to Philemon.

14. The Epistle to the Hebrews.

St. James wrote one, general, Epistle.

St. Peter, two.

St. John, three: and

St. Jude, one.

But by the Epistle in the liturgy we mean the first lesson in the

Communion Service, which is so styled because it is generally taken from

the Epistles of the holy apostles. Sometimes, however, it is taken from

the Acts, and occasionally from the prophets. Almost all the lessons now

read as Epistles in the English liturgy have been appointed to their

present place, and used by our Church, for many ages. They are found in

all the liturgies of our Church used before the revision, in the reign

of Edward VI., and they also appear in all the monuments of the English

liturgy, before the invasion of William the Conqueror. It is, in fact,

probable that they are generally as old as the time of Augustine, A. D.

595. In this view, the lessons entitled Epistles in our liturgy have

been used, with some alterations, for 1200 years by the Church of

England. We must consider this more as a subject of interest and

pleasure than of any great importance, since all Scripture is given by

inspiration of GOD. Yet we may remark, that the extracts read from the

Epistles are generally devotional and practical, and, therefore, best

adapted for ordinary comprehension and general edification.

EPISTOLER. In the 24th canon, and in the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth,

we find that a special reader, entitled an epistoler, is to read the

Epistle in collegiate churches, vested in a cope. The canon and the

injunctions here referred to will be found under the head _Cathedral_.

Epistolers are still statuteable officers in several cathedrals of the

new foundation; though in most it has fallen into desuetude. It is

retained at Durham. The epistoler and gospeller are sometimes called

deacon and subdeacon, in the cathedral statutes. The epistoler,

according to our present rubric, strictly interpreted, must be a priest.

In the Roman Church he is a subdeacon. But by Archbishop Grindal’s

Injunctions in 1571, it was required that parish clerks should be able

to read the first Lesson and Epistle.—_Jebb._

EPOCH. A term in chronology signifying a fixed point of time from which

the succeeding years are numbered. The first epoch is the creation of

the world, which, according to the Vulgate Bible, Archbishop Usher fixes

in the year 710 of the Julian periods, and 4004 years before JESUS

CHRIST. The second is the deluge, which, according to the Hebrew text,

happened in the year of the world 1656. Six other epochs are commonly

reckoned in sacred history: the building of the tower of Babel; the

calling of Abraham; the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt; the

dedication of the temple; the end of the Babylonish captivity; and the

birth of JESUS CHRIST. In profane history are reckoned four epochs: the

æra of Nabonassar, or death of Sardanapalus; the reign of Cyrus at

Babylon; the reign of Alexander the Great over the Persians; and the

beginning of the reign of Augustus, in which our SAVIOUR was born.

ERASTIANS. So called from Erastus, a German heretic of the 16th century.

The pastoral office, according to him, was only persuasive, like that of

a professor of science over his students, without any power of the keys

annexed. The LORD’S supper, and other ordinances of the gospel, were to

be free and open to all. The minister might dissuade the vicious and

unqualified from the communion, but might not refuse it, or inflict any

kind of censure; the punishment of all offences, either of a civil or

religious nature, being referred to the civil magistrate.

ESDRAS, the name of two apocryphal books of Scripture, which were always

excluded the Jewish canon, and are too absurd to be admitted as

canonical by the Romanists themselves. They are supposed to have been

originally written in Greek, by some Hellenistical Jews, though some

imagine that they were first written in Chaldee, and afterwards

translated into Greek. It is uncertain when they were composed, though

it is generally agreed that the author wrote before Josephus.

The First Book of Esdras is chiefly historical, and gives an account of

the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, the building of

the temple, and the establishment of Divine worship. The truth it

contains is borrowed from the canonical books of Ezra (or Esdras, as the

Greeks and Latins call him, and thence term these books, the Third and

Fourth Book of Esdras); the rest is exceeding fabulous and trifling:

this book however is by the Greeks allowed to be canonical. The Second

Book of Esdras is written in the prophetical way, and pretends to

visions and revelations, but so ridiculous and absurd, that the Spirit

of GOD could have no concern in the dictating of them. The author

believed that the day of judgment was at hand, and that all the souls

both of good and bad men would be delivered out of hell after the day of

judgment. He speaks of two monstrous animals created by GOD at the

beginning of the world, in order to make a feast with them for all the

elect, after the resurrection. He says, that the ten tribes are gone

into a certain country, which he calls Arseret; that Ezra repaired the

whole body of the Holy Scriptures, which were entirely lost; and he

speaks of JESUS CHRIST and his apostles in so clear a manner, that the

gospel itself is not more express.

The Books of Esdras are not read in the service of the Church of

England. In the list of apocryphal books in the 6th Article, these are

called the Third and Fourth Books of Esdras, because Ezra and Nehemiah

were formerly joined in one book; and when they were separated, the book

of Nehemiah, being considered as a continuation of the book of Ezra, was

called by his name.—_Bishop Tomline._

ESPOUSE, ESPOUSALS. A ceremony of betrothing, or coming under obligation

for the purpose of marriage. It was a mutual agreement between the two

parties, which usually preceded the marriage some considerable time. The

distinction between _espousals_ and _marriage_ ought to be carefully

attended to, as espousals in the East are sometimes contracted for years

before the parties cohabit, and sometimes in very early youth. This

custom is alluded to figuratively, as between GOD and his people, (Jer.

ii. 2,) to whom he was a husband. (Jer. xxxi. 32.) The apostle says that

he acted as a kind of assistant (_pronuba_) on this occasion (2 Cor. xi.

2.): “I have espoused you to CHRIST,” that is, I have drawn up the

writings, settled the agreements, given pledges, &c., of that union.

(See Isa. liv. 5; Matt. xxv. 6; Rev. xix.)

ESSENES. A very ancient sect, which was spread abroad through Syria,

Egypt, and the neighbouring countries. They maintained that religion

consisted wholly in contemplation and silence. Some of them passed their

lives in a state of celibacy; others embraced the state of matrimony,

which they considered as lawful, when entered into with the sole design

of propagating the species, and not to satisfy the demands of lust. Some

of them held the possibility of appeasing the Deity by sacrifices,

though different from that of the Jews; and others maintained that no

offering was acceptable to GOD but that of a serene and composed mind,

addicted to the contemplation of divine things. They looked upon the law

of Moses as an allegorical system of spiritual and mysterious truths,

and renounced, in its explication, all regard to the outward letter.

ESTABLISHMENT. By a religious establishment is generally meant, in the

present day, the religion, whether Christian or not, which is recognised

by the State. Thus Presbyterianism is the establishment of Scotland,

Mahomedanism that of Turkey. In England and Ireland the Catholic Church

is the establishment. It has not been endowed by the State, which has

rather robbed than enriched it; nor has it been established, like

Presbyterianism in Scotland, by an act of the legislature. But being

endowed by individual piety, it was for many ages the only community in

this country which even pretended to be the Church: as such it was

recognised by the State, and when in process of time the Catholic Church

in this country asserted its independence of Rome, and reformed the

abuses which had crept into it, it continued to be, as it always was,

the religious community connected with the State; although, in the reign

of Queen Elizabeth, a sect in communion with Rome was founded in

England, and arrogated to itself the name and titles which belong to our

ancient Church, and to her alone. A slight reference to history will

show what is meant. Soon after Augustine had been consecrated, in

France, the first archbishop of Canterbury, his see was endowed with

large revenues by King Ethelbert, who likewise established, at the

instance of the archbishop, the dioceses of Rochester and London. The

other kings of the heptarchy erected bishoprics equal to the size of

their kingdoms. And the example was followed by their nobles, who

converted their estates into parishes, erecting fit places of worship,

and endowing them with tithes. (See _Church of England_.)

Thus was the Church established. For many years there appears to have

continued a good understanding between the civil and ecclesiastical

authorities, the powers of which were, in most respects, as in these

days, blended. But, after the moral world had been subdued, and papal

tyranny had been established by the marvellous energies of Hildebrand,

his crafty successors, the popes of Rome, soon perceived that, in order

to secure their dominion, it was important, as far as possible, to sever

the alliance which had hitherto subsisted between the Church and the

State. Representing the Church as independent, they regarded the king as

the head of the State, and the pope as supreme over the Church. No

sectarian of the present day can be more hostile to the alliance between

Church and State than were those divines, who in the middle ages were

devoted to the popedom. Although the pope, however, had here in England,

as elsewhere, many creatures and advocates, yet many and manful were the

repulses he met with from our clergy, our kings, and the people. His

authority, indeed, was, in this realm, a mere assumption, for he was

never elected by any synod of our Church as its head. Still, assuming

rights to which he could lay no lawful claim, his usurpations were

continued until, in the reign of Henry VIII., the clergy, the monarch,

and the people, could bear the tyranny no longer, but, throwing off the

yoke, declared that the pope was _not_ the head of the Church of

England, but that, in these realms, the king is, as in times past he

was, over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as

civil, in these his dominions, supreme. This is the fact, and the

history of the fact. The property of the Church remains with those who

have descended in an unbroken line from the clergy to whom it was

originally granted. If our title be disputed, it devolves upon the

adversary to establish a prior claim. This the Protestant dissenter does

not attempt to do; and, with respect to the Roman Catholic dissenters,

we know, that instead of being descended from the original grantees,

their line of succession began at Rome scarcely more than two centuries

ago. Nor can they claim on the ground of greater similarity of doctrine,

for transubstantiation, the worship of saints and images, half

communion, constrained celibacy, &c., the doctrines and practices which

distinguish the modern Romanists, were unknown to the Anglo-Saxon

Church. Admitting, then, that we may differ in some particulars of

practice from our ancestors, yet certainly we do not differ from them so

much as the modern Romanists.

ESTHER. The Book of Esther is a canonical book of Scripture, containing

the history of Esther. There has been some dispute whether it was a

canonical book among the Jews. St. Jerome and other Christian writers

maintain the affirmative, but St. Athanasius and some others incline to

the opposite conclusion. It has, however, been received as canonical by

the Church. The last six chapters, beginning at the fourth verse of the

tenth chapter, are not in the Hebrew text. These are probably a

composure of several pieces collected by the Hellenistical Jews, and are

therefore deservedly thrown out of the canon of the sacred books by the

Protestant Church; but the Latin and Greek Churches hold them canonical.

As to the author of the Book of Esther, there is great uncertainty. Many

of the Christian fathers attribute this history to Ezra. Eusebius

believes it to be more modern. Others ascribe it to Joachim the high

priest, the grandson of Josedec. Most conceive Mordecai to have been the

author of it, and join Esther with him in the composition of it. M. Du

Pin conjectures, that the great synagogue, to preserve the memory of

this remarkable event, and to account for the original of the feast of

Purim, ordered this book to be composed, which they approved and placed

in the canon of their sacred books. It has been remarked, as a singular

circumstance, that the Divine name does not once occur in this book.

ETERNITY. That mysterious attribute of GOD which implies his existence,

as without end, so without beginning. The self-existent Being, observes

Dr. Clarke, must of necessity be eternal. The ideas of eternity and

self-existence are so closely connected, that, because something must of

necessity be eternal, independently and without any outward cause of its

being, therefore it must necessarily be self-existent; and, because it

is impossible but something must be self-existent, therefore it is

necessary that it must likewise be eternal. To be self-existent, is to

exist by an absolute necessity in the nature of the thing itself. Now

this necessity being absolute, and not depending upon anything external,

must be always unalterably the same, nothing being alterable but what is

capable of being affected by somewhat without itself. That being,

therefore, which has no other cause of its existence but the absolute

necessity of its own nature, must, of necessity, have existed from

everlasting, without beginning, and must, of necessity, exist to

everlasting, without end.

As to the manner of this eternal existence, it is manifest it herein

infinitely transcends the manner of the existence of all created beings,

even of such as shall exist for ever; that whereas it is not possible

for their finite minds to comprehend all that is past, or to understand

perfectly all things that are present, much less to know all that is

future, or to have entirely in their power anything that is to come, but

their thoughts, and knowledge, and power, must, of necessity, have

degrees and periods, and be successive and transient as the things

themselves: the eternal, supreme cause, on the contrary, must of

necessity have such a perfect, independent, unchangeable comprehension

of all things, that there can be no one point or instant of his eternal

duration, wherein all things that are past, present, and to come, will

not be as entirely known and represented to him in one single thought or

view, and all things present and future be as equally and entirely in

his power and direction, as if there was really no succession at all,

but all things were actually present at once.

This is, in reality, the most incomprehensible of the Divine attributes.

God is without beginning; the FATHER, always a Father, without

beginning; the SON, always the only begotten of the FATHER, without

beginning; the HOLY GHOST, always proceeding from the FATHER and the

SON, without beginning; the one GOD, always existing in the Trinity of

his persons, without beginning.

“There is but one living and true GOD, _everlasting_, without body,

parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker

and preserver of all things visible and invisible; and in the unity of

this Godhead, there be Three Persons, of one substance, power, and

_eternity_, the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST.”—_Article_ I.

EUCHARIST. (From εὐχαριστία, _giving of thanks_.) (See _Communion_,

_Lord’s Supper_, _Elements_, _Consecration of the Elements_,

_Sacrament_, _Sacrifice_, _Real Presence_.) _Sacramentum eucharistiæ_ is

the name given to the LORD’S supper in our Latin articles, signifying,

properly, thanksgiving or blessing, and fitly denoting this holy service

as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It occurs in Ignatius,

Irenæus, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, and others; and was adopted into

the Latin language, as may be seen from Tertullian and Cyprian in many

places.—_Waterland._ We have, however, an earlier allusion to the

liturgy, under the title of _eucharistia_, or thanksgiving, in the First

Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians; where, in forbidding and

reasoning against the practice of some persons, who used the miraculous

gift of tongues in an improper manner, namely, by celebrating the

liturgy in an unknown language, he says, “When thou shalt _bless_ with

the SPIRIT, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say

Amen at thy _giving of thanks_, seeing he understandeth not what thou

sayest?” (1 Cor. xiv. 16.) ἐπεὶ, εἂν εὐλογήσῃς τῷ πνεύματι, ὁ ἀναπληρῶν

τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ ἀμὴν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστιᾳ; ἐπειδὴ, τί

λέγεις, οὐκ οἶδε. The meaning of this passage is obvious: “If thou shalt

bless the bread and wine in an unknown language, which has been given to

thee by the HOLY SPIRIT, how shall the layman say Amen, ‘so be it,’ at

the end of thy thanksgiving or liturgy, seeing he understandeth not what

thou sayest?” It is undeniable that St. Paul in this place uses exactly

the same expressions to describe the supposed action as he has employed

a short time before in designating the sacraments of CHRIST’S body and

blood, and describing our LORD’S consecration at the last supper. Τὸ

ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ

Χοιστοῦ ἐστι; “The cup of _blessing_ which we _bless_, is it not the

communion of the blood of CHRIST?” (1 Cor. x. 16.) Ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ

νυκτὶ ᾖ παρεδίδοτο, ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε. (1 Cor. xi.

23.) “The LORD JESUS, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took

bread, and when he had _given thanks_, he brake it.” The language of St.

Paul also in the passage under consideration, as well as the action

which he describes, is perfectly conformable to the description given by

Justin Martyr of the celebration of the eucharist. “Then bread and a cup

of water and wine is offered to the president of the brethren; and he,

taking them, sends up praise and glory to the FATHER of all, in the name

of the SON and of the HOLY GHOST, and makes a very long thanksgiving,

because GOD has thought us worthy of these things. And when he has ended

the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people that are present signify

their approbation, saying, Amen. For Amen in the Hebrew language

signifies ‘so be it.’” Here we observe the “president” corresponding to

the person who “blesses,” according to St. Paul, and performs the

“thanksgiving.” The “people” corresponding to the “unlearned person” (or

layman, as Chrysostom and Theodoret interpret the word) of St. Paul, and

replying Amen, “so be it,” at the end of the thanksgiving in both

passages. If we refer to all the ancient and primitive liturgies of the

East and of Greece, the peculiar applicability of St. Paul’s argument to

the Christian liturgy will appear still more. In the liturgy of

Constantinople or Greece, which has probably been always used at

Corinth, the bishop or priest takes bread, and “blesses” it in the

course of a very long “thanksgiving,” at the end of which all the people

answer, “Amen.” The same may be said of the liturgies of Antioch and

Cæsarea, and, in fine, of all the countries of the East and Greece

through which St. Paul bare rule or founded Churches. It may be added,

that there is, we believe, no instance in the writings of the most

primitive fathers, in which the Amen is ever said to have been repeated

at the end of an office containing both blessing and thanksgiving,

except in the liturgy of the eucharist.

All this shows plainly that the argument of St. Paul applies immediately

and directly to the celebration of this sacrament. Whether we regard his

own previous expressions, the language and the words of the earliest

fathers, or the customs of the primitive Church exhibited in the ancient

liturgies, we see the accurate coincidence between the case which he

refers to, and the celebration of the eucharist.—_Palmer’s Origines

Liturgicæ_, p. 114. We virtually adopt this word, when in the prayer

after communion, we pray to GOD to accept _this our sacrifice of praise

and thanksgiving_.

EUCHARISTIC. Belonging to the service of the holy eucharist; or, in a

larger sense, having the character of thanksgiving.

EUCHELAION. (_Gr._) The _oil of prayer_. To such penitents (in the Greek

Church) as are conscious of the guilt of any mortal sin, as adultery,

fornication, or pride, is administered the sacrament of τὸ εὐχέλαιον,

_Euchelaion_, which is performed by the bishop, or archbishop, assisted

by seven priests, and begins with this prayer, “O Lord, who with the oil

of thy mercies hast healed the wounds of our souls, do thou sanctify

this oil, that those who are anointed therewith may be freed from their

infirmities, and from all corporeal and spiritual evils.” This _oil of

prayer_ is pure and unmixed oil, without any other composition; a

quantity whereof, sufficient to serve for the whole year, is

consecrated, on Wednesday in the Holy Week, by the archbishop, or

bishop. The _Euchelaion_ of the Greek answers to the _Extreme Unction_

of the Romanists.

In the administration of this _oil of prayer_, the priest dips some

cotton at the end of a stick, and therewith anoints the penitent, in the

form of a cross, on the forehead, on the chin, on each cheek, and on the

backs and palms of the hands: after which he repeats this prayer—“Holy

Father, physician of souls and bodies, who hast sent thine only Son

JESUS CHRIST, healing infirmities and sins, to free us from death; heal

this thy servant of corporeal and spiritual infirmities, and give him

salvation and the grace of thy CHRIST, through the prayers of our more

than holy lady, the mother of GOD, the eternal Virgin, through the

assistance of the glorious, celestial, and incorporeal powers, through

the virtue of the holy and life-giving cross, of the holy and glorious

prophet, the forerunner, John the Baptist, and of the holy and glorious

apostles.”—_Ricaut._

EUCHOLOGION. (From εὐχὴ, _preces_, and λόγος, _sermo_.) The name of a

liturgical book of the Greek Church, containing a collection of Divine

services for the administration of the sacraments, conferring of orders,

and other religious offices: it is properly their ritual, containing

everything relating to religious ceremonies. Father Simon observes, that

several of the most considerable divines of that Church, in Europe, met

at Rome under Pope Urban VIII., to examine the Euchologion: Morinus, who

was one of the congregation, mentions this ritual in his book _De

Congregationibus_: the greatest part of the divines, being influenced by

the sentiments of the schoolmen, were willing to reform this Greek

ritual by that of the Church of Rome, as if there had been some heresies

in it, or rather some passages which made the administration of the

sacraments invalid; but some, who more perfectly understood the

controversy, opposed the censure of the Euchologion: they proved this

ritual was agreeable to the practice of the Greek Church before the

schism of Photius, and that for this reason it could not be condemned,

without condemning all the old Eastern communion.

EUDOXIANS. Certain heretics in the fourth century, whose founder was

Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch, and afterwards of Constantinople. They

adhered to the errors of the Aëtians and Eunomians, affirming the SON to

be differently affected in his will from the FATHER, and made of

nothing.

EULOGIÆ. (_Gr._) So the Greek Church calls the _Panis benedictus_, or

bread, over which a blessing is pronounced, and which is distributed to

those who are unqualified to communicate. The name _Eulogiæ_ was

likewise anciently given to the consecrated pieces of bread which the

bishops and priests sent to each other for the keeping up a friendly

correspondence: those presents likewise, which were made out of respect

or obligation, were called _Eulogiæ_.

St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, about the end of the fourth century,

having sent five _Eulogiæ_ at one time to Romanian, speaks to him in

these terms: “That I may not be wanting in the duties of brotherly love,

I send you five pieces of bread, of the ammunition of the warfare of

JESUS CHRIST, under whose standard we fight, following the laws of

temperance and sobriety.”

EUNOMIANS. A sect, so called from Eunomius, who lived in the fourth

century of Christianity; he was constituted bishop of Cyzicum, and

stoutly defended the Arian heresy, maintaining that the FATHER was of a

different nature from the SON, because no creature could be like his

creator: he held that the SON of GOD did not substantially unite himself

to the human nature, but only by virtue and his operations; he affirmed

blasphemously that he knew GOD as well as GOD himself; and those that

were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity he rebaptized, and was so

averse to the mystery, that he forbade the trinal immersion at baptism.

Upon divulging his tenets, he was expelled Cyzicum and forced also to

leave Samosata, where he was also obtruded by the Arian faction. Valens

restored him to Cyzicum, but being again expelled by the people, he

applied himself to Eudoxius at Constantinople.

EUSTATHIANS. A denomination in the fourth century, who derived their

name from Eustathius, a monk. This man was the occasion of great

disorders and divisions in Armenia, Pontus, and the neighbouring

countries; and, in consequence, he was condemned and excommunicated by

the Council of Gangra, which was held soon after that of Nice.

EUTYCHIANS. Heretics in the fifth century, the followers of the error of

Eutyches, who being a Constantinopolitan abbot, and contending against

Nestorius, fell into a new heresy. He and his followers affirmed that

CHRIST was one thing, the Word another; they denied the flesh of CHRIST

to be like ours, but said he had a celestial body, which passed through

the Virgin as through a channel; that there were two natures in CHRIST

before the hypostatical union, but that, after it, there was but one,

compounded of both; and thence concluded that the Divinity of CHRIST

both suffered and died. Being condemned in a synod at Constantinople, he

appealed to the emperor: after which, by the assistance of Dioscorus,

bishop of Alexandria, he obtained a synod at Ephesus, called

Latrocinium, or the assembly of thieves and robbers, wherein he got his

heresy to be approved: however, in the fourth general council, under

Marcian, A. D. 451, his errors were a second time condemned.

EVANGEL. (From εὐ, _bene_, and ἀγγελία, _nuncius_.) The gospel of

CHRIST. The revealed history of our blessed LORD’S life.

EVANGELICAL. Agreeable to the gospel, or “evangel.” The term is used by

that class of dissenters whose private judgment leads them to regard as

Scriptural the facts of our LORD’S Divinity and atonement, to

distinguish them from another class of dissenters, whose private

judgment leads them to hold these sacred truths as unscriptural. (See

the _Evangelical Magazine_.) The name is sometimes given to those

persons who conform to the Church, but whose notions are supposed more

nearly to coincide with the opinions of dissenters than with the

doctrines of the Church; thereby most unjustly insinuating that the

principles of all consistent members of the Church are not according to

the gospel. The use of terms of distinction among members of the Church

is much to be reprobated: among sects it cannot be avoided. In the

strict and proper sense of the words, he who is truly evangelical must

be a true member of the Church, and every true member of the Church must

be truly evangelical.

EVANGELISTS. Persons chosen by the apostles to preach the gospel. It

being impracticable for the twelve only to preach the gospel to all the

world, Philip, among others, was engaged in this function. As for their

rank in the Church, St. Paul places them after the apostles and

prophets, but before the pastors and teachers, (Eph. iv. 11,) which

makes Theodoret call them apostles of the second rank: they had no

particular flock assigned, as bishops or ordinary pastors, but travelled

from one place to another, according to their instructions received from

the apostles, to whom they returned after they had executed their

commission, so that, in short, this office, being extraordinary, expired

with the apostles.

The title of Evangelists is now more particularly given to those four

holy persons who wrote the history of our _Saviour_.

EVENS, or VIGILS. The nights or evenings before certain holy-days of the

Church. Vigils are derived from the earliest periods of Christianity. In

those times of persecution Christians held their assemblies in the

night, in order to avoid detection. On these occasions they celebrated

the memory of CHRIST’S death in the holy mysteries. When persecution had

intermitted and finally ceased, although Christians were able to

celebrate all their rites, and to minister the sacraments in the

day-time, yet a custom which had commenced from necessity was retained

from devotion and choice. The reason why some of the festivals have

evens or vigils assigned, and some have not, appears to be this, that

the festivals which have no vigils fall generally between Christmas and

the Purification, or between Easter and Whitsuntide; which were always

esteemed such seasons of joy that the Church did not think fit to

intermingle them with any days of fasting and humiliation. To this rule

there are exceptions, which may be severally accounted for, but such

seems to be the rule: e.g. There is no vigil on St. Michael’s day,

because, as Dr. Bisse remarks, the saints entered into joy through

sufferings, and therefore their festivals are preceded by fasts; which

circumstance is not applicable to the angels of GOD. St. Paul’s day

commemorates not his martyrdom, but his conversion; St. Luke was not an

apostle, nor does the calendar represent him as a martyr. The holy-days

which have vigils may be seen in the Prayer Book, in the table of the

Vigils, Fasts, and Days of Abstinence to be observed in the Year.

The eves are in some respects observed in colleges and choirs as

Sundays. For example, in those places where the choral service was not

daily, it was nevertheless performed on Saturday evenings and eves, as

is still usual; though in some choirs the custom has fallen into

abeyance. But in all colleges the regulation of the 17th canon is still

observed, which directs that “all masters and fellows of colleges and

halls, and all the scholars and students in either of the universities,

shall in their churches and chapels, upon all Sundays, holy-days, _and

their eves_, at the time of Divine service, wear surplices, according to

the order of the Church of England; and such as are graduates, shall

agreeably wear with their surplices such hoods as do severally appertain

to their degrees.” At Oxford, however, except at Christ Church, the rule

is not generally understood as applying to any but foundation members.

It is difficult to determine what analogy these evening services,

preceding Sundays and holy-days, bear to those of the unreformed Church

of England. The service for the vigil, in the Breviary, is not at

vespers. There is a distinct service for the vigil from matins to nones

inclusive, which has collects, &c. different from that of the Sunday or

holy-day which it precedes. Ordinary Sundays have not vigils, either in

our Church or in the Roman, except at Easter and Pentecost. By our

calendar, therefore, the eve of the Sunday is plainly a different matter

from the vigil. Though the collect for the Sunday is uniformly read on

the preceding Saturday evening, it is not read when the holy-day has no

vigil or eve. The Saturday evening service is to be considered as an

introduction to that of Sunday.

Some clergymen doubt whether, in case of a holy-day with a vigil or eve

falling on a Monday, the collect for that holy-day is to be read on the

Sunday evening or on the Saturday. That the _vigil_ or _fast_ day must

be kept on the Saturday, and not on the Sunday, is plain from the

calendar. But whether this keeping of the vigil includes the

_commemoration_ of the holy-day by reading the collect, is not so

evident. The question must first be solved, whether the service of the

preceding evening is a _vigil service_, or the _first vespers_.—_Jebb._

EVEN-SONG. (See _Liturgy, Common Prayer_.) Evening prayer, which is

appointed to be sung or said. The office of even-song, or evening

prayer, is a judicious abridgment of the offices of vespers (i. e.

even-song) and compline, as used in our Church before the Reformation;

and it appears that the revisers of our offices formed the introduction

to evening prayer from those parts of both vespers and compline which

seemed best suited to this place, and which presented uniformity with

the introduction to morning prayer.

_Even-song_ occurs in the table of Proper Lessons for Sundays and

Holy-days, and Proper Psalms. It is in fact the same as the old word

vespers; and only differs from the other authorized expression, evening

prayer, in having more special reference to the psalms and hymns, and

the anthem, those holy _songs_ which make up so large a portion of the

service.

EXALTATION OF THE CROSS. A festival of the Greek and Romish Churches

observed on the 14th of December. It is founded on the following legend:

In the reign of Heraclius, Chosroes, king of Persia, sacked Jerusalem,

and, together with other plunder, carried off that part of the cross

left there in memory of our SAVIOUR, by the empress Helena, which

Chosroes sent into Persia. After many battles, in which the Persian was

always defeated, Heraclius had the good fortune to recover the cross.

This prince carried it to Jerusalem himself; and, laying aside his

imperial ornaments, marched with it on his shoulders to the top of Mount

Calvary, from whence it had been taken. The memory of this action was

perpetuated by the festival of the re-establishment, or (as it is now

called) the exaltation of the cross.

The latter name was given to this festival, because on this day they

exalted or set up the cross in the great church at Constantinople, in

order to show it to the people.

EXAMINATION FOR ORDERS. By Canon 35, “The bishop, before he admit any

person to holy orders, shall diligently examine him, in the presence of

those ministers that shall assist him at the imposition of hands; and if

the bishop have any lawful impediment, he shall cause the said ministers

carefully to examine every such person so to be ordered.... And if any

bishop or suffragan shall admit any to sacred orders who is not so

examined, and qualified as before we have ordained, [viz. in Canon 34,]

the archbishop of his province, having notice thereof, and being

assisted therein by one bishop, shall suspend the said bishop or

suffragan so offending, from making either deacons or priests for the

space of two years.”

Of common right, this examination pertaineth to the archdeacon, saith

Lyndewood; and so saith the canon law, in which this is laid down as one

branch of the archidiaconal office. Which is also supposed in our

present form of ordination, both of priests and deacons, where the

archdeacon’s office is to present the persons that are apt and meet. And

for the regular method of examination, we are referred by Lyndewood to

the canon upon that head, inserted in the body of the canon law, viz.

When the bishop intends to hold an ordination, all who are desirous to

be admitted into the ministry are to appear on the fourth day before the

ordination; and then the bishop shall appoint some of the priests

attending him, and others skilled in the Divine law, and exercised in

the ecclesiastical sanctions, who shall diligently examine the life,

age, and title of the persons to be ordained; at what place they had

their education; whether they be well learned; whether they be

instructed in the law of GOD; and they shall be diligently examined for

three days successively; and so on the Saturday, they who are approved

shall be presented to the bishop.

EXAMINATION BEFORE INSTITUTION. In the first settlement of the Church of

England, the bishops of the several dioceses had them under their own

immediate care, and that of the clergy living in a community with them,

whom they sent abroad to several parts of their dioceses, as they saw

occasion to employ them; but by degrees, they found it necessary to

place presbyters within such a compass, that they might attend upon the

service of GOD amongst the inhabitants. These precincts, which are since

called parishes, were at first much larger; and when lords of manors

were inclined to build churches for their own convenience, they found it

necessary to make some endowments, to oblige those who officiated in

their churches to a diligent attendance: upon this, the several bishops

were very well content to let those patrons have the nomination of

persons to those churches, provided they were satisfied of the fitness

of those persons, and that it were not deferred beyond such a limited

time. So that the right of patronage is really but a limited trust; and

the bishops are still in law the judges of the fitness of the persons to

be employed in the several parts of their dioceses. The patrons never

had the absolute disposal of their benefices upon their own terms; but

if they did not present fit persons within the limited time, the care of

the places did return to the bishop, who was then bound to provide for

them.

By the statute _Articuli cleri_, 9 Edward II. s. 1, c. 13, it is enacted

as follows:—“It is desired that spiritual persons, whom our lord the

king doth present unto benefices of the Church, (if the bishop will not

admit them, either for lack of learning, or for other cause reasonable,)

may not be under the examination of lay persons in the cases aforesaid,

as it is now attempted, contrary to the decrees canonical; but that they

may sue unto a spiritual judge for remedy, as right shall require.” The

answer:—“Of the ability of a person presented unto a benefice of the

Church, the examination belongeth to a spiritual judge; so it hath been

used heretofore, and shall be hereafter.”

“Of the ability of a person presented”—_De idoneitate personæ_: so that

it is required by law, that the person presented be _idonea persona_;

for so be the words of the king’s writ, _præsentare idoneam personam_.

And this _idoneitas_ consisteth in divers expressions against persons

presented:—1. Concerning the person, as if he be under age or a layman.

2. Concerning his conversation, as if he be criminous. 3. Concerning his

inability to discharge his pastoral duty, as if he be unlearned, and not

able to feed his flock with spiritual food. And the examination of the

ability and sufficiency of the person presented belongs to the bishop,

who is the ecclesiastical judge; and in this examination he is a judge,

and not a minister, and may and ought to refuse the person presented, if

he be not _idonea persona_.

“The examination belongeth to a spiritual judge;” and yet in some cases,

notwithstanding this statute, _idoneitas personæ_ shall be tried by the

country, or else there should be a failure of justice, which the law

will not suffer; as if the inability or insufficiency be alleged in a

man that is dead, this case is out of the statute; for in such case the

bishop cannot examine him; and, consequently, though the matter be

spiritual, yet shall it be tried by a jury; and the court, being

assisted by learned men in that profession, may instruct the jury as

well of the ecclesiastical law in that case, as they usually do of the

common law.

By a constitution of Archbishop Langton:—“We do enjoin, that if any one

be canonically presented to a church, and there be no opposition, the

bishop shall not delay to admit him longer than two months, provided he

be sufficient.”

But by Canon 95—“Albeit by former constitutions of the Church of

England, every bishop hath had two months’ space to inquire and inform

himself of the sufficiency and qualities of every minister after he hath

been presented unto him to be instituted into any benefice, yet for the

avoiding of some inconveniences, we do now abridge and reduce the said

two months unto eight and twenty days only. In respect of which

abridgment we do ordain and appoint that no double quarrel shall

hereafter be granted out of any of the archbishops’ courts, at the suit

of any minister whatsoever, except he shall first take his personal

oath, that the said eight and twenty days at the least are expired after

he first tendered his presentation to the bishop, and that he refused to

grant him institution thereupon; or shall enter into bond with

sufficient sureties to prove the same to be true; under pain of

suspension of the granter thereof from the execution of his office for

half-a-year _toties quoties_, to be denounced by the said archbishop,

and nullity of the double quarrel aforesaid so unduly procured, to all

intents and purposes whatsoever. Always provided, that within the said

eight and twenty days, the bishop shall not institute any other to the

prejudice of the said party before presented, _sub pœna nullitatis_.

“Every bishop hath had.”—The canon mentions bishops, only because

institution belongeth to them of common right; but it must also be

understood to extend to others, who have this right by privilege or

custom, as deans, deans and chapters, and others who have peculiar

jurisdiction. Concerning whom it hath been unanimously adjudged, that if

the archbishop shall give institution to any peculiar belonging to any

ecclesiastical person or body, it is only voidable; because they being

not free from this jurisdiction and visitation, the archbishop shall be

supposed to have a concurrent jurisdiction, and in this case only to

supply the defects of the inferiors, till the contrary appears. But if

the archbishop grant institution to a peculiar in a lay hand, it is null

and void; because he can have no jurisdiction there.

“To inquire and inform himself.”—In answer to an objection made, that

the bishop ought to receive the clerk of him that comes first, otherwise

he is a disturber, Hobart saith, the law is contrary; for as he may take

competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a clerk, so he

may give convenient time to persons interested, to take knowledge of the

avoidance, (even in case of death, and where notice is to be taken and

not given,) to present their clerks to it.

Canon 39. “No bishop shall institute any to a benefice, who hath been

ordained by any other bishop, except he first show unto him his letters

of orders; and bring him a sufficient testimony of his former good life

and behaviour, if the bishop shall require it; and, lastly, shall appear

upon due examination to be worthy of his ministry.”

“Except he first show unto him his letters of orders.”—And by the 13 &

14 Charles II. c. 4, no person shall be capable to be admitted to any

parsonage, vicarage, benefice, or other ecclesiastical promotion or

dignity whatsoever, before such time as he shall be ordained priest, and

bring a sufficient testimony of his former good life and behaviour. By

the ancient laws of the Church, and particularly of the Church of

England, the four things in which the bishop was to have full

satisfaction in order to institution, were age, learning, behaviour, and

orders. And there is scarce any one thing which the ancient canons of

the Church more peremptorily forbid, than the admitting clergymen of one

diocese to exercise their function in another, without first exhibiting

the letters testimonial and commendatory of the bishop by whom they were

ordained; and the constitutions of the Archbishops Reynolds and Arundel

show that the same was the known law of the English Church, to wit, that

none should be admitted to officiate (not so much as a chaplain or

curate) in any diocese in which he was not born or ordained, unless he

bring with him his letters of orders, and letters commendatory of his

diocesan.

And, lastly, “shall appear, upon due examination, to be worthy of his

ministry.”—As to the matter of learning, it hath been particularly

allowed, not only by the courts of the King’s Bench and Common Pleas,

but also by the High Court of Parliament, that the ordinary is not

accountable to any temporal court, for the measures he takes or the

rules by which he proceeds, in examining and judging (only he must

examine in convenient time, and refuse in convenient time); and that the

clerk’s having been ordained (and so presumed to be of good abilities)

doth not take away or diminish the right which the statute above recited

doth give to the bishop to whom the presentation is made to examine and

judge.

EXARCH. An officer in the Greek Church, whose business it is to visit

the provinces allotted to him, in order to inform himself of the lives

and manners of the clergy; take cognizance of ecclesiastical causes; the

manner of celebrating Divine service; the administration of the

sacraments, particularly confession; the observance of the canons;

monastic discipline; affairs of marriages; divorces, &c.

The title of exarchs, borrowed from the civil administration of the

empire, was given about the fourth century to the chief bishops of

certain large provinces; as the bishops of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and of

Ephesus.

EXCOMMUNICATION is an ecclesiastical censure, whereby the person against

whom it is pronounced is for the time cast out of the communion of the

Church.

Excommunication is of two kinds, the lesser and the greater: the lesser

excommunication is the depriving the offender of the use of the

sacraments and Divine worship; and this sentence is passed by judges

ecclesiastical, on such persons as are guilty of obstinacy or

disobedience, in not appearing upon a citation, or not submitting to

penance, or other injunctions of the court.

The greater excommunication is that whereby men are deprived, not only

of the sacraments and the benefit of Divine offices, but of the society

and conversation of the faithful.

If a person be excommunicated generally, as if the judge say, _I

excommunicate such a person_, this shall be understood of the greater

excommunication.

The law in many cases inflicts the censure of excommunication _ipso

facto_ upon offenders; which nevertheless is not intended so as to

condemn any person without a lawful trial for his offence: but he must

first be found guilty in the proper court; and then the law gives that

judgment. And there are divers provincial constitutions, by which it is

provided, that this sentence shall not be pronounced (in ordinary cases)

without previous monition or notice to the parties, which also is

agreeable to the ancient canon law.

By Canon 65. “All ordinaries shall in their several jurisdictions

carefully see and give order, that as well those who for obstinate

refusing to frequent Divine service established by public authority

within this realm of England, as those also (especially those of the

better sort and condition) who for notorious contumacy, or other notable

crimes, stand lawfully excommunicate, (unless within three months

immediately after the said sentence of excommunication pronounced

against them, they reform themselves, and obtain the benefit of

absolution,) be every six months ensuing, as well in the parish church

as in the cathedral church of the diocese in which they remain, by the

minister, openly in the time of Divine service upon some Sunday,

denounced and declared excommunicate, that others may be thereby both

admonished to refrain their company and society, and excited the rather

to procure a writ _de excommunicato capiendo_, thereby to bring and

reduce them into due order and obedience. Likewise the registrar of

every ecclesiastical court shall yearly, between Michaelmas and

Christmas, duly certify the archbishop of the province of all and

singular the premises aforesaid.”

By Canon 68. “If the minister refuse to bury any corpse, except the

party deceased were denounced excommunicated by the greater

excommunication, for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able

to testify of his repentance, he shall be suspended by the bishop from

his ministry for the space of three months.”

But by the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer, the Burial Office shall

not be used for any that die excommunicate.

EXEAT. The permission given by the authorities in a college, to persons

_in statu pupillari_, to leave their college residence for a time.

EXEDRÆ, in ecclesiastical antiquity, is the general name of such

buildings as were distinct from the main body of the _churches_, and yet

within the bounds of the Church, taken in its largest sense. Thus

Eusebius, speaking of the church of Paulinus at Tyre, says, “When that

curious artist had finished his famous structure within, he then set

himself about the _exedræ_, or buildings that joined one to another by

the sides of the church.” Among the _exedræ_, the chief was the

_baptistery_, or place of baptism. Also the two vestries, or sacristies,

as we should call them, still found in all Oriental churches; viz. the

_Diaconicum_, wherein the sacred utensils, &c. were kept; and the

_Prothesis_, where the side-table stood, on which the elements before

consecration were placed.—_Jebb._

EXEMPTION, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, means a privilege

given by the pope to the clergy, and sometimes to the laity, to exempt

or free them from the jurisdiction of their respective ordinaries.