higher authorities, delivers it as the doctrine of the Fathers on this
subject, that, while CHRIST spoke to Peter in the singular, he made
conveyance of the powers in question to all the apostles. Duaren speaks
to the same effect. He affirms that the power of binding and loosing was
given to the Church, and not to an individual.
Some even of the Roman commentators give a similar interpretation. Thus
Nicholas de Lyra says that, as the confession of Peter was the
confession of the rest, so the power given to him was bestowed on all.
D’Espence and many others give the same exposition.
The severe rebuke administered to Peter, following so closely upon his
confession, puts another difficulty in the way of those who insist on
his great personal prerogatives. Gregory de Valentia proposes, as a rule
of interpretation, that some things are to be taken as addressed to
Peter in his public, and some in his private, character. Thus he
supposes him to have been called the Rock in the former, and Satan in
the latter; but this distinction is arbitrary, and obviously invented to
serve a purpose. We shall not be more disposed to adopt the opinion of
Hilary, who would have us consider the one part of the sentence
addressed to Peter, the other to the evil spirit. But while, with the
great body of ancient doctors, we admit the sin, we may well believe
that GOD in his wisdom overruled it for good, by making it a warning
that we should not think even of this eminent apostle more highly than
we ought to think.—_S. Robins._
KINDRED. (See _Consanguinity_.)
KING’S EVIL. This disease is connected with the ecclesiastical history
of England by the power to cure it, which was for many centuries
attributed to the kings of England, and which was, from the time of
Edward the Confessor, held to be exercised as a part of the religion
attached to the person of the king. The cure, too, was always
accompanied by a religious service.
The kings of France also claimed the gift of healing, (but upon no other
occasions than at their coronation,) and the ceremony was used at the
coronation of Charles X., at Rheims. George I. made no pretensions to
this gift, and it has never been claimed by his successors.
Bishop Bull says, “that divers persons desperately labouring under the
king’s evil, have been cured by the mere touch of the royal hands,
assisted with the prayers of the priests of our Church attending, is
unquestionable, unless the faith of all our ancient writers, and the
consentient report of hundreds of most credible persons in our own age,
attesting the same, is to be questioned.”—_Sermon on St. Paul’s Thorn in
the Flesh._
In January, 1683, a proclamation was issued by the privy-council, and
was ordered to be published in every parish in the kingdom, enjoining
that the time for presenting persons for the “public healings” should be
from the feast of All-saints, till a week before Christmas; and after
Christmas until the first day of March, and then to cease till Passion
week.
The office for the ceremony was called “_The Ceremonies_,” or “_Prayers
for the Healing_.” The Latin form was used in the time of Henry VII.,
and was reprinted by the king’s printer in 1686. The English forms were
essentially the same, with some modifications. These occur in the Common
Prayer Books of the reigns of Charles I., Charles II., James II., and
Anne (and, as it appears from Mr. Stephens’s own statement, in that of
George I., in 1715). They all vary; and a new one appears to have been
drawn up for each sovereign, so late as 1719. (See _Pegge’s Curialia
Miscellanea_, 161; taken from a folio Prayer Book, 1710. Also Kennet’s
Register, 731, and Sparrow’s Articles, 165, which latter form seems to
have been used in the reign of Charles I.) In Mr. Stephens’s editions of
the Common Prayer Book, from which the foregoing article has been
abridged, the Latin form is given, (i. 997,) and the English form in
1715 (1002).
The following is the form in _Sparrow’s Collections_, printed in 1684.
AT THE HEALING.
_The Gospel written in the 16th chapter of St. Mark, beginning at the
14th verse._
JESUS appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and cast in their
teeth their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not
them which had seen that he was risen again from the dead. And he said
unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all
creatures: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned. And these tokens shall follow them
that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak
with new tongues, they shall drive away serpents, and if they drink any
deadly thing it shall not hurt them. [6]_They shall lay their hands on
the sick, and they shall recover._ So when the LORD had spoken unto
them, he was received into heaven, and is on the right hand of GOD. And
they went forth, and preached everywhere, the LORD working with them,
and confirming the word with miracles following.
_The Gospel written in the 1st chapter of St. John, beginning at the 1st
verse._
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word
was GOD. The same was in the beginning with GOD. All things were made by
it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and
the life was the light of men, and the light shined in the darkness, and
the darkness comprehended it not. There was sent from _God_ a man whose
name was JOHN. The same came as a witness, to bear witness of the Light,
that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was
sent to bear witness of the Light. [7]_That Light was the true Light,
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world._ He was in the
world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He
came among his own, and his own received him not. But as many as
received him, to them gave he power to be made sons of GOD, even them
that believed on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor yet of the will of man, but of GOD. And the same
Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the glory of it, as
the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and
truth.
THE PRAYERS.
_Vers._ Lord have mercy upon us.
_Resp._ _Lord have mercy upon us._
_Vers._ Christ have mercy upon us.
_Resp._ _Christ have mercy upon us._
_Vers._ Lord have mercy upon us.
_Resp._ _Lord have mercy upon us._
Our Father which art in Heaven. Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom
come. Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day
our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them
that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver
us from evil. Amen.
(_These Answers are to be made by them that come to be healed._)
_Vers._ O LORD, save thy servants.
_Resp._ _Which put their trust in thee._
_Vers._ Send help unto them from above.
_Resp._ _And evermore mightily defend them._
_Vers._ Help us, O GOD our Saviour.
_Resp._ _And for the glory of thy Name deliver us; be merciful unto us
sinners for thy Name’s sake._
_Vers._ O LORD, hear our prayer.
_Resp._ _And let our cry come unto thee._
O Almighty God, who art the giver of all health, and the aid of them
that seek to Thee for succour, we call upon Thee for thy help and
goodness mercifully to be showed unto these thy servants, that they
being healed of their infirmity, may give thanks unto thee in thy holy
Church, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD. Amen.
The grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the love of GOD, and the
fellowship of the HOLY GHOST, be with us all evermore. Amen.
The same form appears at the end of _L’Estrange’s Alliance of the Divine
Offices_, 1699. It seems that in some of Queen Anne’s Prayer Books, (not
in 1715, as stated by Mr. Stephens,) the form was altered, by the
omission of the second Gospel, and the addition of certain prayers.
There seems to be little doubt that, by the mere force of imagination, a
cure was not unfrequently occasioned.
KINGS, BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called,
because they contain the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, from
the beginning of the reign of Solomon down to the Babylonish captivity,
for the space of near 600 years; taking into the account the two
preceding Books of Samuel. In the Greek Bibles, as well as in the Latin,
the two Books of Samuel are called the First and Second Books of Kings;
so that in these copies of the Bible there are four Books of Kings.
Anciently these four were but two in the Hebrew Bibles, the first
whereof was called Samuel, and the second Kings, or Kingdoms: but at
present, in the Hebrew copies, the first of these books is styled the
First and Second Book of Samuel; and the other, the First and Second of
Kings, as in our English version of the Bible.
It is probable that the two Books of Kings were composed by Ezra, who
extracted them out of the public records which were kept of what passed
in that nation.
KIRK OF SCOTLAND. (See _Presbyterians_.) The Kirk of Scotland
acknowledges as its founder the celebrated John Knox, a disciple of
Calvin. From its foundation, it adopted the doctrine and ecclesiastical
government of the Church of Geneva. In 1581, King James, with his whole
family and the whole nation, subscribed a confession of faith, with a
solemn league and covenant, obliging themselves to maintain and defend
the Protestant religion and Presbyterian government. The title of this
confession is, “A General Confession of the true Christian Faith and
Religion, according to GOD’S Word, and Acts of our Parliament,
subscribed by the King’s Majestic and his Household; with sundrie
others. To the glory of GOD, and good example of all men. At Edinburgh,
the 28th day of Januarie. The year of our LORD 1581. And in the 14th
year of his Majestie’s reign.” (See _Confessions of Faith_.)
KISS OF PEACE. (See _Pax_.) This form of salutation, as a token of
Christian affection, appears to have been an apostolic custom. (Rom.
xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26; 1 Pet. v. 14.)
It was one of the rites of the eucharistic service in the primitive
Church. It was omitted on Good Friday in remembrance of the traitorous
kiss of Judas Iscariot.—_Augusti._
KNEELING. The posture which the Church prescribes in prayer, acts of
confession, &c.
The practice of kneeling in confession, in prayer, and in adoration, is
of great antiquity; a reference to it being apparently made in Isaac’s
blessing on Jacob, (Gen. xxvii. 29,)—compared with his brother’s
subsequent conduct, (xlii. 6,) and with the edict of Pharaoh, “Bow the
knee” (xli. 43); and again in the second commandment. (Exod. xx. 5.)
David says, “Let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the “LORD
our Maker.”” (Ps. xcv. 6.) “We will go into his tabernacle, and fall low
on our knees before his footstool.” (cxxxii. 7.) Solomon “kneeled on his
knees” before the altar of the LORD, with his hands spread up to heaven.
(1 Kings viii. 54.) Ezra fell upon his knees, and spread out his hands
unto GOD, and made his confession. (Ezra ix. 5–15.) Daniel “kneeled upon
his knees three times a day,” and prayed “as he did aforetime.” (Dan.
vi. 10.) The holy martyr Stephen “kneeled down, and cried with a loud
voice,” praying for his murderers. (Acts vii. 60.) So Peter “kneeled
down, and prayed,” (Acts ix. 40,) and also St. Paul. (Acts xx. 36; xxi.
5.)
That the posture was a customary one may be inferred from the conduct of
the man beseeching CHRIST to heal his son, (Matt. xvii. 14,) and of the
rich young man, (Mark x. 17,) as also of the leper (Mark i. 40); but the
example of our blessed LORD himself, who, though without sin, yet
“kneeled down” when he prayed, (Luke xxii. 41,) cannot but recommend the
practice to every devout worshipper. Some of the early Christians so
frequently used this posture of humility, as visibly to wear away the
floor on which they kneeled; and Eusebius says of St. James the Just,
that he had, by the continual exercise of his devotions, contracted a
hardness on his knees, like that on the knees of camels. The practice
was altogether so common, that prayer itself was termed κλίσις
γονάτων—“bending the knees.” It is to be noticed, however, that the
primitive Christians, out of a peculiar regard for the LORD’S day, and
the joyful season between Easter and Whitsuntide, did (with the
exception of the penitents, who were denied this privilege) then perform
their whole devotions _standing_, instead of kneeling: and this custom
was confirmed by the Council of Nice, for the sake of uniformity. It was
from this circumstance, probably, that the Ethiopic and Muscovitish
Churches adopted the attitude of standing, generally, a custom which
they continue to this day.
Bingham remarks (book xiii. 8. 4) that though these two postures of
prayer were very indifferent in their own nature, yet it was always
esteemed an instance of great negligence, or great perverseness, to
interchange them unseasonably one for the other, that is, to pray
kneeling on the LORD’S day, when the Church required standing; or
standing on other days, when the rules and custom of the Church required
men to kneel. And therefore, as the Canons of Nice and of the Council
_in Trullo_ reflect upon those who were superstitiously bent upon
kneeling on the LORD’S day, so others with equal severity complain of
the remissness and negligence of such as refused to kneel at other
times, when the Church appointed it. It is a very indecent and irregular
thing, says Cæsarius of Arles, that when the deacon cries out, “Let us
bend the knee,” the people should then stand erect as pillars in the
Church. These were but small observations in themselves, but of great
consequence, we see, when done perversely, to the scandal and disorder
of the Church, whose great rule in all such cases is that of the
apostle, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
In the whole of the primitive religious service there is not any
circumstance _casual_; every particular, every gesture, is
_instructive_. In the presence of GOD man fell upon his face to the
ground; and, by that act, humbly confessed his _original_: hence _bowing
to the ground_ is the formal _word_ for _worshipping_, which it was high
treason to practise toward any idol. And when, from that posture, man
raised himself to praise and to bless GOD, he raised himself no further
than the knee, still so far retaining the posture of humility; and from
this posture the _word_ to signify _blessing_ is taken. As bowing to the
ground is used to signify worshipping, _kneeling_ is used to signify
_blessing_.—_Forbes’ Thoughts on Religion._
_Posture of body_ is a thing which, how slight soever it may now be
thought to be, yet is not without its moment, if either Scripture, or
reason, or the practice of holy men, may be our judges. For if we ought
to _glorify God in our bodies_, as well as in our spirits; if we are
forbidden to bow down before a graven image, lest we should thereby be
thought by GOD to impart his honour to it; in fine, if our SAVIOUR
refused to fall down, and worship the devil, upon the account of GOD’S
challenging that honour unto himself; then must it be thought to be our
duty to make use of such a posture of body towards GOD, as may bespeak
our inward reverence, and particularly in prayer, which is one of the
most immediate acts of the glorification of him.—_Towerson on the
Creed._
St. Augustine says, “I know not how it comes to pass, but so it is, that
though these motions of the body be not made without a foregoing motion
of the mind, yet, again, by the outward and visible performance of them,
that more inward and invisible one, which caused them, is increased; and
so the affection of the heart, which was the cause of their being done,
is itself improved by the doing of them.”—_Aug. de Cura pro Mortuis._
In the morning and evening service, the minister or priest is directed
to kneel (with the people) at the Confession, LORD’S Prayer, and two
versicles which follow; the versicles after the Creed, (a lesser
Litany,) and the LORD’S Prayer following, and at the Collects. No
position is enjoined for the Litany; but universal custom prescribes
kneeling. In the Communion Service, the priest is to kneel only at the
general confession, at the prayer immediately following the Sanctus, and
when receiving the holy communion. The directions for the people are not
as explicit here as elsewhere; but they are directed to kneel in the
part before the sermon, with the following exceptions,—at the reading of
the Gospel (for the Epistle no posture is prescribed) and at the Creed.
After the sermon they are directed to kneel only at the confession, and
the reception of the communion.
KNELL. A bell tolled at funerals.
KORAH, SONGS OR PSALMS OF THE SONS OF. The “sons of Korah” formed one of
the three choirs of the temple, all Levites. They are sometimes called
Korhites, or Kohathites, being descended from Kohath, the second son of
Levi; Kohath’s grandson being Korah. Heman was the director of this
choir in the time of King David: but it seems not to have survived the
captivity, as the sons of Asaph are alone named by Nehemiah. Twelve
psalms are inscribed Psalms or Songs of the Sons of Korah; and are
supposed to have been specially performed by that choir, or composed by
some of its members. They are the forty-second to the forty-ninth,
eighty-fourth, eighty-fifth, eighty-seventh, and eighty-eighth.—_Jebb._
KYRIE ELEISON. The Greek of “LORD have mercy” upon us. This earnest and
pathetic appeal of the penitent heart has, from the apostolic age, been
freely incorporated into the liturgies of the Church. It is perpetually
repeated in the Greek liturgies; and in our own it is of frequent
occurrence: so frequent, indeed, that exceptions have sometimes been
taken to our forms, as tinctured with an overabundant sorrow and
self-abasement, for those who are called to be the sons of GOD. The
fault, however, is fortunately on the right side; and, as Bishop Sparrow
remarks, on the Kyrie between the commandments, if there be any that
think this might have been spared, as being fitter for poor publicans
than saints, let them turn to the parable of the publican and Pharisee
going up to the temple to pray, (Luke xviii.,) and here they shall
receive an answer. It generally precedes the LORD’S Prayer. In the
Litany, each of the three clauses is repeated severally by both minister
and people. In the First Book of King Edward VI., it was used at the
beginning of the Communion Service, and the figure iii. was prefixed to
each clause, to signify that each was to be preceded three times. The
Kyrie Eleison is generally called “_the Lesser Litany_.”
KYRIE, “O LORD,” (in Church music,) the vocative of the Greek word
signifying LORD, with which word all the musical masses in the Church of
Rome commence, that is, the above-mentioned _Kyrie Eleison_. Hence it
has come to be used substantively for the whole piece, as one may say,
_a beautiful Kyrie, a Kyrie well executed, &c._ It is sometimes applied
to the responses between the commandments in our Prayer Book.—_Jebb._
LABARUM. The celebrated imperial standard used by Constantine the Great.
Near the extremity of the shaft of a lance, sheathed in plates of gold,
was affixed, in a horizontal position, a small rod, so as to form the
exact figure of a cross. From this transverse little bar hung drooping a
small purple veil of the finest texture, interwoven with golden threads,
and starred with brilliant jewels. Above this rose the sacred monogram
of JESUS CHRIST encircled with a golden crown. Under this banner were
his victories gained. It was carried near the emperor, and defended
specially by the flower of his army. The etymology of the word is
utterly unknown.
LAITY, LAYMAN. The people (λαὸς) as distinguished from the clergy. This
distinction was derived from the Jewish Church, and adopted into the
Christian by the apostles themselves. Every one knows that the offices
of the priests and Levites among the Jews were distinct from those of
the people. And so it was among Christians from the first foundation of
the Church. Wherever any number of converts were made, as soon as they
were capable of being formed into a Church, a bishop or a presbyter,
with a deacon, was ordained to minister to them, as Epiphanius delivers
from the ancient histories of the Church.
Every true Christian Church is a body of men associated for religious
purposes, and composed of two distinct classes,—the clergy and the
laity: the clergy especially and divinely set apart for sacred offices;
the laity exercising the duties and receiving the privileges of
religion, in the midst of temporal occupations and secular affairs. But
the clergy are thus set apart, not for their own benefit only, but for
the benefit of the Church in general, of their lay brethren among the
rest; and the laity also are bound to employ their temporal
opportunities not for themselves exclusively, but for the Church in
general, and for their clerical brethren among the rest. They who
minister at the altar, minister for those who partake of the altar; and
they who partake of the altar are bound to support those who minister at
the altar; and this is one out of a thousand applications of the general
principles of communion, and of the reciprocal rights and privileges on
which it is founded.
Compacted by these reciprocal duties and privileges, but still more
truly and effectually by ordinances and sacraments, and by a divine and
mystical agency which animates all with one spirit, and sanctifies all
with one grace, clergy and laity together form but one body. The clergy
alone no more constitute the Church, either in a spiritual, in an
ecclesiastical, or in a political sense, than do the laity alone; and
the Church has no existence, no duties, no rights, no authority, except
as it is composed of both clergy and laity. It is because they forget
this that we continually hear persons speaking of the Church as it were
only an hierarchy. If regulations of any kind are proposed for the
prosperity of the Church, they start at the sound as if it meant the
aggrandizement of the clergy: if the Church is said to be in danger,
they only think of the fall of mitres and the impoverishing of
benefices. The real truth is, that the Church’s privilege and authority
belong to the whole body, whoever may be their immediate recipients and
executors; and whoever maintains them, whether he be lay or clerical,
maintains his own rights and his own patrimony.
And the part of the laity in the Church is no more purely political,
than the part of the clergy is purely spiritual. Nothing could be less
just than to deny to the laity a spiritual _character_, although they
are not appointed to spiritual _offices_. The sacraments which the
ministers distribute, and the laity partake with them, are spiritual;
the one (that is, holy baptism) originating, the other (that is, the
blessed eucharist) continuing a spiritual character in the recipients.
The minister offers up spiritual lauds and prayers for his flock. Even
external discipline has a spiritual object, and would be both absurd and
unjust, if exercised over those who are not members of the Church
spiritual as well as visible. And, finally and principally, the ever
blessed fountain and stream of a true spiritual character, without whom
no external sacrament or rite can be to any purpose, even the HOLY
GHOST, is purchased by CHRIST for his whole Church; and sent from HIM
and from the FATHER, not exclusively upon any order of men, but upon
all, from the highest order of the clergy to the least and lowest of the
laity who maintain their spiritual character. As the precious unguent
poured upon Aaron’s head, flowed not only over his own beard, but even
to the skirts of his clothing; so does that spiritual stream of a holy
character flow from the Head of the Church, not on those only whose
_office_ is _sacred_, but on those also whose _character_ is
_sanctified_; not only upon those whose part it is to govern, but on
those also who must obey in spiritual things. And so it is that the
mystical temple of CHRIST “groweth together in CHRIST, which is the
Head; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by
that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in
the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body.”
And this is, indeed, the right clue to the interpretation of those
passages of Scripture in which all CHRIST’S people are designated as
priests, and which have been perverted into an authority for the
exercise of clerical functions by the laity. It is the spiritual
_character_, not the spiritual _office_, of every Christian, of which
St. Peter speaks, when he says, “Ye also, as living stones, are built
up, _a spiritual house, an holy priesthood_, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices unto GOD by JESUS CHRIST.” And again, “Ye are a chosen
generation, _a royal priesthood, a holy nation_, a peculiar people.” So
also when St. John says, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our
sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings _and priests_ unto GOD the
FATHER, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever:” and when Moses
declares of the Israelites, as they typified the Christian Church, “Ye
shall be unto me _a kingdom of priests_, and a _holy nation_:” they
convey an assurance to us, not of the priestly office, but of the
spiritual character and privileges of every member of the Church of
CHRIST.
And it is as partaking in this spiritual character with them that the
laity share with the clergy in many other things. They have the same
privilege of the Christian altar, and for their children the same
privilege of the Christian font: the promises of GOD to them are the
same; and spiritual benefits, both present and future, clergy and laity
share together: their duties are almost all of them in common, varying
principally in the external manner in which they are to be performed:
and even where there is the most apparent exclusion of the laity from
the ceremonial, they are by no means excluded from the authority which
sanctions the ceremonial. It would be most wicked and presumptuous for a
layman to take on himself the ordination of another, or the consecration
of the eucharist; but it would be nothing short of heresy, though a new
heresy, to deny that the bishop and the priest perform these acts with
that authority which is vested in the Church, as a society of faithful
men, lay as well as clerical. It is in the name, not of the clergy, but
of the Church, that the bishop confirms and ordains; that the minister
pronounces absolution and a blessing; that discipline is enforced, and
penitents are restored: and in all these cases the minister is the
representative and instrument, not of the clergy, nor of his individual
bishop, but of the Church at large. But it is not only in the authority
and privileges of the Church, but in its responsibility also, that the
laity are included. If a Church fall into heresy, or error of doctrine
or of practice, though the hierarchy may be the chief instigators and
movers of such error, yet the laity, still maintaining their communion,
are necessarily involved in their sin. And so, on the other hand, if the
laity fall into spiritual error, the clergy also are responsible, and
involved in the sin. It mattered not whether it were the heresy of the
Nicolaitanes, or the religious indifference of the body of a Church
which had left its first love: the candlestick was removed, not from the
clergy only in the one case, nor from the laity only in the other, but
all were swept away together. The laity among the Arians were not
excused because they left the Catholic faith in company with their
bishops; nor were those of the clergy, who, in latter days, cast off
episcopal authority because of the clamours of the people, thus
justified. GOD only can precisely judge of the degree of sin in parties
thus situated; but as a point of sound theory in religion and theology,
the clergy are concerned in the errors of their flocks; the laity are
involved in the heresies and schisms, and other ecclesiastical crimes,
of their bishops and pastors.
This mutual responsibility of clergy and laity would result even from
the principles of a civil polity, of the nature of which the Church, as
a society, necessarily partakes: but they follow still more manifestly
among the consequences of her spiritual union; and are plainly stated in
the sacred Scriptures, by the rules of which the Church is ever to be
judged. Surely nothing can be clearer than the words of St. Paul,
“Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one
member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it; now ye are the body
of CHRIST, and members in particular.”
Thus we see that, in matters purely spiritual, the laity are very
seriously _responsible_ for the proceedings of the Church as carried on,
well or ill, by its appointed ministers. How greatly they are
_interested_ in the same matters, needs not to be proved at much length;
since the validity of the sacraments, the soundness of doctrine, the
catholicity of fellowship, certainly concern them quite as nearly as the
clergy themselves. But so soon as we take into consideration those
matters in which the Church partakes of the nature of a civil polity, we
find the interest of the laity in its regulations so much increased,
that sometimes they are even more nearly concerned than the clergy
themselves. A single line of George Herbert will illustrate these
principles; he says,
“The Scriptures bid us fast; the Church says now.”
Here in the Scriptural part, (the propriety and benefit of fasting,)
laity and clergy are concerned equally; but so soon as the Church exerts
its authority in the way of polity, (to determine the time,) the laity,
upon whose secular habits a religious exercise makes a greater
incursion, are by far the most concerned. The same thing holds in every
rule for the regulation of penance or communion, for the determining of
the proper recipients of baptism, the proper candidates for holy orders,
and the like. And to go a step farther; there are parts of the
ecclesiastical polity which are spiritual only by accident, and
indirectly; such as the means used in collecting funds for charitable or
religious purposes, and for the carrying on of the government of the
Church; and in these the immediate and direct interest of the laity is
altogether paramount.
These, which are the true Church principles on the subject of the clergy
and the laity, will be sufficient to answer the charge of priestcraft
against those of the clergy who enforce sound principles on this
subject; and to make those of the laity who wish to act up to the high
principles which they profess, feel that as churchmen they possess a
sacred character which must not be lightly compromised, and spiritual
privileges which they may well think worth contending for, against the
low principles of dissenters and quasidissenters.—_Poole on the
Admission of Lay Members to the Synods of the Church in Scotland._
LAMBETH ARTICLES. Certain articles so called because they were drawn up
at Lambeth, in the year 1595, by the then archbishop of Canterbury and
the bishop of London.
It appears that towards the close of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, the errors
of Calvinism had spread among the clergy of the Church of England. These
errors were opposed by some of the most learned divines of Cambridge.
But the opponents of Calvinism were denounced as persons addicted to
Popery; and the heads of houses ventured to censure one divine because
he denied some points of Calvinistic doctrine, and spoke disrespectfully
of Calvin, Peter Martyr, and others. Archbishop Whitgift, and some other
bishops, were inclined to take part with the heads of houses at
Cambridge, and, adhering to the popular side, to condemn the orthodox
divines. They met together at Lambeth palace, and there Archbishop
Whitgift, Dr. Vaughan, elect of Bangor, Dr. Fletcher, elect of London,
Dr. Tyndall, dean of Ely, and the Calvinistic divines from Cambridge,
digested under the nine following heads what are called the Lambeth
Articles:
“1. GOD hath from eternity predestinated certain persons to life, and
hath reprobated certain persons unto death. 2. The moving or efficient
cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of faith, or of
perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in the persons
predestinated; but the alone will of GOD’S good pleasure. 3. The
predestinate are a predetermined and certain number, which can neither
be lessened nor increased. 4. Such as are not predestinated to salvation
shall inevitably be condemned on account of their sins. 5. The true,
lively, and justifying faith, and the spirit of GOD justifying, is not
extinguished, doth not utterly fail, doth not vanish away in the elect,
either finally or totally. 6. A true believer, that is, one who is
endued with justifying faith, is certified by the full assurance of
faith that his sins are forgiven, and that he shall be everlastingly
saved by CHRIST. 7. Saving grace is not allowed, is not imparted, is not
granted to all men, by which they may be saved if they will. 8. No man
is able to come to CHRIST, unless it be given him, and unless the FATHER
draw him; and all men are not drawn by the FATHER, that they may come to
his SON. 9. It is not in the will or power of every man to be saved.”
These articles, asserting the most offensive of the Calvinistic
positions, were not accepted by the Church, and consequently were of no
authority, although they were employed at the time to silence those by
authority against whom argument could not prevail. The prelates who drew
them up acted without authority, for they were not assembled in a synod.
A synod is an assembly of bishops and presbyters duly convened. In this
instance there was no convention. The meeting was a mere private
conference; and the decision was of no more weight than the charge of a
bishop delivered without a consultation with his clergy, which is only
the expression of a private opinion, it may be that even of an Arian or
Sabellian; and which, though heard with respect, is only to be treated
as the opinion of an individual, until the clergy have officially
received it as orthodox: it was to be received with respect, and
examined with reference not to the authority with which it was given,
but according to its merits. There can be no greater proof of the
absence of Calvinism from the Thirty-nine Articles than the fact, that
the very persons who were condemning the orthodox for innovation, were
compelled to invent new articles before they could make our Church
Calvinistic. The conduct of the archbishop gave much offence to many
pious persons, and especially to the queen; and this attempt to
introduce Calvinism into our Church entirely failed.
LAMBETH DEGREES. The popular designation given to degrees conferred by
the archbishop of Canterbury, who has the power of giving degrees in any
of the faculties. This is supposed to be a relic of legislative
authority.
LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. A canonical book of the Old Testament. (See
_Jeremiah_.)
This book is a kind of funeral elegy on the death of the good king
Josiah, as appears from what is recorded: “Jeremiah lamented for Josiah,
and all the singing men and singing women spake of Josiah in their
lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel; and
behold they are written in the Lamentations.” This is confirmed by the
Jewish historian Josephus.
St. Jerome imagines this prophet laments the loss of Josiah, as the
beginning of those calamities which followed: accordingly he
prophetically bewails the miserable state of the Jews, and the
destruction of Jerusalem; though some are of opinion, the Lamentations
were composed after the taking of Jerusalem.
The first two chapters of this book are employed in describing the
calamities of the siege of Jerusalem. In the third, the author deplores
the persecutions he himself had suffered. The fourth turns upon the
desolation of the city and temple, and the misfortune of Zedekiah. The
fifth chapter is a kind of form of prayer for the Jews in their
dispersion and captivity. At the end of all, he speaks of the cruelty of
the Edomites, who had insulted Jerusalem in her misery.
The first four chapters of the Lamentations are in acrostic verse, and
abecedary; every verse or couplet beginning with one of the letters of
the Hebrew alphabet, in their alphabetical order.
There is a preface to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in the Greek, and in
the Vulgar Latin, which is not in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee
Paraphrase, nor in the Syriac; and which was manifestly added by way of
Argument of the book.
LAMMAS DAY. A festival of the Romish Church, otherwise called _St.
Peter’s chains_, or _St. Peter in the fetters_, in memory of the
imprisonment of that apostle. Two derivations have been given of the
name _Lammas_. 1st, The literal sense, arising from a ludicrous notion
of the vulgar, that St. Peter was patron of the _lambs_, from our
SAVIOUR’S words to him, “Feed my lambs.” 2. From a Saxon word, meaning
“_Loaf-mass_,” it having been the custom of the Saxons to offer on this
day (August 1) an oblation of loaves made of new wheat, as the
first-fruits of their new corn.
LAMPADARY. An officer in the ancient Church of Constantinople; so
called, because it was his business to see that the lamps of the church
were lighted, and to carry a taper before the emperor, the empress, and
the patriarch, when they went to church, or in procession. The taper,
borne before the emperor, was encompassed with several golden circles
representing crowns: those carried before the empress and patriarch had
but one. These tapers were emblematical, and signified that these
illustrious personages were to enlighten the rest of the world by the
splendour of their virtues.
LANTERN. The central tower of a cross church, when it is open over the
cross. This seems always to have been the vernacular term for such a
tower. Thus, William de Chambre says of Bishop Skirlaw, “_Magnam partem
campanilis, vulgo_ lantern, _ministerii Eboracensis construxit_.”
LAPSE. When a patron neglects to present a clergyman to a benefice in
his gift, within six months after its vacancy, the benefice lapses to
the bishop; and if he does not collate within six months, it lapses to
the archbishop; and if he neglects to collate within six months, it
lapses to the Crown.
LAPSED. Those persons were so called, who in time of persecution denied
the faith of CHRIST; but again, on persecution ceasing, sought
reconciliation and Church communion.
The discipline with which such persons were visited included a long
absence from the holy eucharist, which however was not denied them in
case of extreme illness. And the maternal solicitude of the Church for
her sons was so great, that when dangerous sickness was prevalent, or
when another persecution seemed to impend, it somewhat relaxed the rule.
This is especially shown in the conduct and writings of St. Cyprian; in
whose times the case of the lapsed was brought before the Church, by
circumstances, more fully, and was also more clearly determined, than it
had been before. One of his most celebrated tracts refers especially to
their case.
Different circumstances gave to different individuals of the lapsed the
names of _Sacrificati_, _Thurificati_, and _Libellatici_. (See these
words.) The _Traditores_ were not held wholly free from the crime of the
lapsed. (See _Traditors_.)
Those who absolutely and for ever fell away were classed by the Church
as heathens, and had of course no ecclesiastical position, however low.
LATERAN COUNCILS. Under this head, to which reference has been made
under the article on _Councils_, we shall include all the councils of
the Romish Church.
_Lateran (I.)_ in the year 1123. It was convened by Pope Calixtus II.,
who presided in person. It consisted of 300 bishops. It decreed that
investiture to ecclesiastical dignities was the exclusive right of the
Church; and that the practice of secular princes giving such investiture
was an usurpation. The celibacy of the clergy was also decreed.
_Lateran (II.)_ in 1139, composed of nearly 1000 bishops, under the
presidency of Pope Innocent II. It decided on the due election of this
pope, and condemned the errors of Peter de Bruys and Arnold of Brescia.
_Lateran (III.)_ in 1179. At this council, with Pope Alexander III. at
their head, 302 bishops condemned what they were pleased to call the
“errors and impieties” of the Waldenses and Albigenses.
_Lateran (IV.)_ in 1215, composed of 412 bishops, under Innocent III.,
had for its objects the recovery of the Holy Land, reformation of
abuses, and the extirpation of heresy.
_Lyons (I.)_ in 1245, consisting of 140 bishops, was convened for the
purpose of promoting the Crusades, restoring ecclesiastical discipline,
and dethroning Frederick II., emperor of Germany. It was also decreed at
this council that cardinals should wear red hats.
_Lyons (II.)_ in 1274. There were 500 bishops and about 1000 inferior
clergy present. Its principal object was the reunion of the Greek and
Latin Churches.
_Vienne_ in Gaul, 1311, consisting of 300 bishops, who were convoked to
suppress the Knights Templars, condemn those who were accused of heresy,
and assist the Christians in Palestine.
_Constance_, in 1414–1418. The German emperor, the pope, 20 princes, 140
counts, more than 20 cardinals, 7 patriarchs, 20 archbishops, 91
bishops, 600 other clerical dignitaries, and about 4000 priests, were
present at this celebrated ecclesiastical assembly, which was occasioned
by the divisions and contests that had arisen about the affairs of the
Church. From 1305–1377, the popes had resided at Avignon; but in 1378,
Gregory XI. removed the papal seat back to Rome: after his death, the
French and Italian cardinals could not agree upon a successor, and so
each party chose its own candidate. This led to a schism, which lasted
forty years. Indeed, when the emperor Sigismund ascended the throne, in
1411, there were _three_ popes, each of whom had anathematized the two
others. To put an end to these disorders, and to stop the diffusion of
the doctrines of Huss, Sigismund went in person to Italy, France, Spain,
and England, and (as the emperor Maximilian I. used to say, in jest,
performing the part of the beadle of the Roman empire) summoned a
general council. The pretended heresies of Wickliff and Huss were here
condemned, and the latter, notwithstanding the assurances of safety
given him by the emperor, was burnt, July 7, 1415; and his friend and
companion, Jerome of Prague, met with the same fate, May 30, 1416. The
three popes were formally deposed, and Martin V. was legally chosen to
the chair of St. Peter.
_Basle_, 1431, under the presidency of the cardinal legate Juliano
Cæsarini of St. Angelo, after holding not fewer than forty-five
sessions, terminated its labours, May 16, 1443. Its objects, which were
partly attained, were to extirpate heresies, limit the power of the
pope, effect a reformation of the clergy, and consolidate the interests
of the Church. Its decrees are not admitted into any of the Roman
collections, and are considered of no authority by the Roman lawyers.
They are, however, recognised in points of canon law in France and
Germany; and though some later concordats have modified the application
of them, they have never been formally and entirely annulled.
_Florence_, 1439–1442. It was composed of 141 bishops, the patriarch of
Constantinople, and the legates of the patriarchs of Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem. It effected a renunciation of schism on the part
of the Greeks, and an abjuration of heresy on the part of the Armenians.
_Lateran (V.)_ in 1512, convened by Pope Julius II., to oppose another
held by nine cardinals of high rank the year before at Pisa, with a view
to bridle his wild animosity, turbulence, and contumacy. It declared
that council schismatic, abolished the Pragmatic Sanction, and
strengthened the power of the Roman see.
_Trent_, convoked and opened by Paul III. in 1545; continued under
Julius III.; and, after numerous interruptions, brought to a close in
1563, under the pontificate of Pius IV. Its object was professedly to
reform ecclesiastical abuses, but really to counteract and crush the
Reformation. (See _Trent_.)
LATITUDINARIANS. Certain divines so called from the latitude of their
principles. The term is chiefly applied to some divines of the
seventeenth century, who were attached to the English establishment, as
such, but regarded episcopacy, and forms of public worship, as among the
things indifferent. They would not exclude from their communion those
who differed from them in those particulars. Many of the latitudinarian
divines commenced as Calvinists, and ended as Socinians.
LATTER-DAY SAINTS. (See _Mormonists_.)
LATRIA. (See _Dulia_.)
LAUDS. The service which followed next after the nocturn was so
designated before the Reformation. It was sometimes called matin lauds.
The lauds are now, in the reformed Church of England, merged in the
matins. The office of Lauds contains the Benedicite and the Benediction,
as that of Matins does the Te Deum. Both have psalmody and hymns.
LAUDS, in Church music, hymns of praise.
LAURA. A name given to a collection of little cells at some distance
from each other, in which the hermits of ancient times lived together in
a wilderness. These hermits did not live in community, but each monk
provided for himself in his distinct cell. The most celebrated Lauras
mentioned in ecclesiastical history were in Palestine; as the Laura of
St. Euthymius, St. Saba, the Laura of the Towers, &c. The most ancient
monasteries in Ireland were Lauras.
LAVACRUM. (See _Piscina_.)
LAY BAPTISM. (See _Baptism_.) Baptism administered by persons not in
holy orders, i. e. by laymen.
It is a first principle in the Church of GOD, that no one has a right to
execute any function of the ministry, till he has been lawfully invested
with the ministerial office. It is also confessed that the
administration of baptism is one of the functions of the ministry. It
follows, therefore, that none have a _right_ to administer baptism, but
those holding ministerial authority. Here, then, there can be no
dispute; laymen have no _right_ to baptize. But what if they _should_
baptize in spite of this virtual interdict? Is there any force or
validity in an act done in open violation of a fixed principle of the
Church? Here is the important question of the controversy—the very “pith
of the matter;” and it resolves itself into this simple inquiry:—Suppose
that a layman has no _right_ to baptize, has he also no _ability_? The
distinction between these it will be well to keep in view. A man may
have _ability_ to do an action without the _right_ to exercise that
ability, and so _vice versâ_. And again, a citizen may be in full
possession of intellectual and physical qualifications for a public
office; but without either _right_ or _ability_ to perform the
authoritative acts of such an office, till these are conferred upon him
by the superior power. Whence then does a layman derive any _ability_ to
baptize? We do not here mean the ability to perform the physical acts of
reciting the form, and pouring the water, (for these are in every one’s
power,) but that of standing as GOD’S agent in effecting “a death unto
sin, and a new birth unto righteousness;” in conferring remission of
sins, and declaring that “_hereby_,” in this very act of usurpation,
“children of wrath are made the children of grace.” How can any one, not
a lawful minister, possess ability to this extent? With all humility we
reply, that we know not, unless the sacrament work _ex opere operato_:
and thus the Romish Church is so far consistent in allowing midwives and
others to baptize. She does believe that the sacrament works _ex opere
operato_; but is it not a little singular that the extremes of
ultra-Protestantism and Romanism should here meet? If a layman should
perform the external part of ordination, confirmation, absolution,
consecration of the eucharist, &c., we agree in the conclusion, that
this is null and void, because he has no power over the internal and
spiritual part of such offices. If baptism, therefore, be anything more
than an external ceremony, the same conclusion would seem to follow, for
anything we can learn from Scripture to the contrary. We have no proof
that CHRIST ever promised to sanction lay baptism; or that he conferred
the power of baptizing on any but the clergy; or that the apostles ever
imparted it to any other but clergy; or that CHRIST ever pledged himself
to bind or loose in heaven what laymen might bind or loose on earth. To
say the least, then, there is very great uncertainty as to the spiritual
effect of baptisms administered by those whom neither the Head of the
Church, nor his apostles, ever commissioned to baptize. This appears to
us a manifest result of the principle from which we started: and, unless
that principle be preserved, we see not how the integrity of the Church
can be maintained, or how the prerogatives and powers of the ministry
can be asserted; or why, except as a mere matter of expediency, there
should be any ministry at all. For, if it be granted that though laymen
have no _right_ to perform priestly offices, yet, if they choose, they
_can_ perform them; i. e. their usurped acts are ratified in heaven,
equally with those of an empowered ministry; this is to overturn the
very foundations of apostolic order; to deprive the clergy of their
Divine commission, or to effectually neutralize it; and, finally, to
reduce their office, in the judgment of the world, to the low rank of a
mere literary profession, or ecclesiastical employment.
So much, then, for the legitimate consequences of the principle on which
the doctrine of the ministry rests. But when we turn to the _practice_
of the Church, we are struck with an apparent contrariety. In very early
times, the baptisms of laymen, and of degraded or schismatical priests,
were not in all cases repeated, though there were not wanting those who,
like St. Cyprian, were resolved to maintain the strictest view of their
invalidity. That such baptisms were suffered to pass in the century next
after the apostles, it would be difficult to prove; and in the
succeeding age the probability is, that they were only tolerated in
cases of extreme necessity. Still the fact is undeniable, that for more
than a thousand years lay baptisms have occurred in the Church, and in
such cases re-baptization was not always thought necessary.
How, then, could the Church vindicate herself in a procedure which
seemed subversive of one of her cardinal principles? for, at first
sight, the charge of inconsistency appears inevitable; and yet, as every
tyro knows, the ancient Church was tenacious of her rights, and exact in
her administration, almost to a proverb. To us, the key to the matter
seems to have been this. While the Church acknowledged no authority in
laymen to baptize, yet if they did go through the regular forms, the
_external part_ of the sacrament was actually performed. Hence, in all
cases, diligent inquiry was made whether the element of water was
applied, and whether this was done in the name of the sacred TRINITY. On
proof of this, the concession was made that _so far_ baptism had been
given. But while the Church allowed that laymen could perform the
_external_ part of baptism, she seems to have denied altogether that
they could communicate its _spiritual graces_; and, therefore, if we
mistake not, a lay baptism was never esteemed perfect, complete, and
without defect, i. e. valid both in its external and internal parts. A
person so baptized, on returning to the unity of the Church, or on
application for admittance to its higher privileges, was received
without the repetition of the external part of the initiatory sacrament,
but was endued with remission and the HOLY SPIRIT, by the laying on of
the bishop’s hands in confirmation, these spiritual gifts being those
which were wanting in the applicant’s lay baptism. Now, if this were so,
the Church stands clear of any charge of inconsistency; nay, more, she
exhibits her adherence to principle in the strongest light, by treating
lay baptism as a mere form of that sacrament, “without the power
thereof.” This, we think, was the ordinary practice of the Church. And
though confirmation is an ordinance distinct from baptism, yet it always
preserved a closer alliance with that sacrament than with the holy
eucharist, being anciently given either in immediate connexion with
baptism, or at a period very little subsequent to it.
So far as the irregular baptisms of heretics and schismatics were
concerned, it is incontestable that the compensating practice just
referred to was very generally adopted. And that confirmation was given,
in such cases, not only for the conferring of its own proper graces, but
also with the direct object of correcting the deficiencies of a previous
baptism, is manifest from the language of early writers. Leo, in writing
to Nicetius, bishop of Aquileia, remarks, “that such as received baptism
from heretics * * * were to be received only by invocation of the HOLY
SPIRIT, and imposition of hands, and that because they had before only
received the _form_ of baptism, without the sanctifying power of it.”
St. Augustine “supposes,” says Bingham, “that they who are thus baptized
received the outward visible sacrament, but not the invisible, internal,
sanctifying grace of the SPIRIT.” These graces, “heretics and
schismatics were not supposed qualified to give, nor they who desired
baptism at their hands qualified to receive, till they returned with
repentance and charity to the unity of the Church again; and then the
Church, by imposition of hands, and invocation of the HOLY SPIRIT, might
obtain for them those blessings and graces which might have been had in
baptism, &c. This was the general sense of the Church; for which reason
they appointed that imposition of hands should be given to such as
returned to the Church, in order to obtain the grace of the HOLY GHOST
for them by prayer, which they wanted before, as having received baptism
from those who had no power to give the HOLY GHOST. Innocent says, that
‘their ministrations were defective in this, that they could not give
the HOLY GHOST; and therefore such as were baptized by them were
imperfect, and were to be received with imposition of hands, that they
might thereby obtain the grace of the HOLY GHOST.’” “This,” adds
Bingham, “was the true and only method of supplying the defects of
heretical baptism, as is evident from all the passages which speak of
the use of the sacred unction, which was joined with imposition of hands
and prayer, to implore the grace of remission of sins, and the other
gifts of the HOLY SPIRIT, which were wanting before.” Confirmation was
therefore regarded as supplying all that was deficient in the
unauthorized baptism of heretics and schismatics; and though less is
said about the usurped baptism of orthodox laymen, yet analogy would
lead us to judge that a resort was had to the same expedient to relieve
their imperfection. Thus much we know, that the ancient Church stood
firmly on principle, and yet that laymen sometimes baptized, in direct
defiance of that principle, and in such cases the external part was
frequently not repeated; therefore, by some process, this imperfect
baptism was legalized and consummated, and we read of no other such
process than that just stated.
In the Church of England there is some diversity both of opinion and
practice with respect to lay baptisms. By some persons they are regarded
as valid; by others, as imperfect, till ratified by confirmation, or by
the use of the hypothetical form; by a third class, as totally invalid.
From the time of Augustine, the first archbishop of Canterbury, till
that of Archbishop Bancroft, in the reign of James I., lay baptisms were
recognised in our Church; but they were baptisms by _authorized_
persons, persons who had received episcopal licence for the act. In the
reign of Edward VI., it was ordered in the Office of Private Baptism,
that they “that be present shall call upon GOD for his grace, and say
the LORD’S Prayer, if the time will suffer, and then _one of them_ shall
name the child, and dip him in water, or pour water upon him, saying,”
&c. But the rubric now stands altered thus: “First let the minister of
the parish (or in his absence _any other lawful minister_ that can be
procured) with them that are present call upon GOD and say the LORD’S
Prayer, and so many of the collects appointed to be said before in the
form of Public Baptism, as the time and present exigence will suffer.
And then the child being named by some one that is present, the minister
shall throw water upon it, saying,” &c. This would seem to show a desire
on the part of the Church to prevent laymen from baptizing, though it
attaches, of course, such great importance to this holy sacrament, that
she permits any lawful minister, i. e. any minister of the Church, to
officiate on such an occasion, even though in another man’s parish.
Having now given the reader an abstract of the state of this question,
we leave him to judge as well as he can, where lies the preponderance of
truth, and the place of greatest safety. That the lawfully ordained
ministers of CHRIST have the power and right of administering true
baptism, is incontestable. Whether any others possess the like power, we
shall know and acknowledge, when they produce their commission to “go
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, and of
the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.”
LAY-BROTHERS, among the Romanists, are the servants of a convent.
A _lay-brother_ wears a different habit from that of the religious: he
never enters into the choir, nor is present at the chapters. He is not
in any orders, nor makes any vow, except of constancy and obedience. He
is employed in the temporal concerns of the convent, and has the care of
the kitchen, gate, &c.
The institution of _lay-brothers_ began in the eleventh century. The
persons, on whom this title and office were conferred, were too ignorant
to become clerks, and therefore applied themselves wholly to bodily
work, in which they expressed that zeal for religion, which could not
exert itself in spiritual exercises.
In the _nunneries_ there are also _lay-sisters_, who are retained in the
convents for the service of the _nuns_, in like manner as the
_lay-brothers_ are for that of the _monks_.
LAY-CLERKS. _Clerici Laici._ Singing men so called in the Statutes of
the Cathedrals, founded or remodeled by King Henry VII. In general,
their number was commensurate with that of the Minor Canons.
_Lay-Vicars_ are sometimes incorrectly so styled.
LAY-VICARS. (See _Vicars Choral_.)
LAY-ELDERS. After Calvin had settled the presbyterian form of government
at Geneva, and that model was followed elsewhere, laymen were admitted
into a share or part of the administration of the Church, under the
denomination of _lay-elders_. This sort of officers was utterly unknown
in the Church before the sixteenth century, and is now admitted only
where the presbyterian government obtains.
LAYING ON OF HANDS. (See _Imposition of Hands_.)
LEAGUE, SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT. (See _Confessions of Faith_ and
_Covenant_.) This was a compact established in 1643, to form a bond of
union between the Scottish and English Presbyterians. Those who took it
pledged themselves, without respect of persons, to endeavour the
“extirpation of Popery and prelacy, (i. e. church government by
archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans
and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers
depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness,
and whatever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of
godliness.” It was opposed by the parliament and assembly at
Westminster, and ratified by the General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk,
in 1645. In 1650, Charles II., under compulsion and hypocritically,
declared his approbation of it. The league was ratified by parliament in
1651, and subscription required of every member. At the Restoration it
was voted illegal by parliament.
The following is the document which is still bound up with the
Westminster Confession, as one of the formularies of the Scottish
Establishment, though the ministers are no longer obliged to sign it:—
THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT for Reformation and Defence of
Religion, the Honour and Happiness of the King, and the Peace and
Safety of the Three Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland;
agreed upon by Commissioners from the Parliament and Assembly of
Divines in England, with Commissioners of the Convention of Estates,
and General Assembly in Scotland; approved by the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland, and by both Houses of Parliament and
Assembly of Divines in England, and taken and subscribed by them,
_Anno_ 1643; and thereafter, by the said authority, taken and
subscribed by all Ranks in Scotland and England the same Year; and
ratified by Act of the Parliament of Scotland, _Anno_ 1644: And
again renewed in Scotland, with an Acknowledgment of Sins, and
Engagement to Duties, by all Ranks, _Anno_ 1648, and by Parliament
1649; and taken and subscribed by _King Charles II._ at _Spey, June
23, 1650_; and at _Scoon, January 1, 1651_.
WE Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers
of the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland,
England, and Ireland, by the providence of GOD, living under one King,
and being of one reformed religion, having before our eyes the glory of
GOD, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour JESUS
CHRIST, the honour and happiness of the King’s Majesty and his
posterity, and the true publick liberty, safety, and peace of the
kingdoms, wherein every one’s private condition is included: And calling
to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, attempts, and
practices of the enemies of GOD, against the true religion and
professors thereof in all places, especially in these three kingdoms,
ever since the reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power,
and presumption are of late, and at this time, increased and exercised,
whereof the deplorable state of the church and kingdom of Ireland, the
distressed estate of the church and kingdom of England, and the
dangerous estate of the church and kingdom of Scotland, are present and
public testimonies; we have now at last, (after other means of
supplication, remonstrance, protestation, and sufferings,) for the
preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and
destruction, according to the commendable practice of these kingdoms in
former times, and the example of GOD’S people in other nations, after
mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and
solemn League and Covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us
for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most High GOD, do swear,
I. THAT we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of
GOD, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the preservation of
the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation
of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of GOD, and
the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring
the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and
uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church-government,
directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our posterity after
us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight
to dwell in the midst of us.
II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour
the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is, church-government by
Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans
and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical Officers
depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness,
and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the
power of godliness, lest we partake in other men’s sins, and thereby be
in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and
his name one, in the three kingdoms.
III. We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our
several vocations, endeavour, with our estates and lives, mutually to
preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties
of the kingdoms; and to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s person
and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion, and
liberties of the kingdoms; that the world may bear witness with our
conscience of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to
diminish his Majesty’s just power and greatness.
IV. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of all
such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil
instruments, by hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king
from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any
faction or parties amongst the people, contrary to this League and
Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive condign
punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or
the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively, or others having
power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient.
V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these kingdoms,
denied in former times to our progenitors, is, by the good providence of
GOD, granted unto us, and hath been lately concluded and settled by both
Parliaments; we shall each one of us, according to our place and
interest, endeavour that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and
union to all posterity; and that justice may be done upon the wilful
opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent article.
VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common
cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend
all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining
and pursuing thereof; and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or
indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be
divided and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether
to make defection to the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a
detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause which so much
concerneth the glory of GOD, the good of the kingdom, and honour of the
King; but shall, all the days of our lives, zealously and constantly
continue therein against all opposition, and promote the same, according
to our power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and, what we
are not able ourselves to suppress or overcome, we shall reveal and make
known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: All which we shall do
as in the sight of God.
And, because these kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations
against GOD, and his Son JESUS CHRIST, as is too manifest by our present
distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof; we profess and declare
before GOD and the world, our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own
sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms: especially, that we have not
as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the gospel; that we have
not laboured for the purity and power thereof; and that we have not
endeavoured to receive CHRIST in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of him
in our lives; which are the causes of other sins and transgressions so
much abounding amongst us: and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire,
and endeavour for ourselves, and all others under our power and charge,
both in publick and in private, in all duties we owe to GOD and man, to
amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the example of a
real reformation; that the Lord may turn away his wrath and heavy
indignation, and establish these churches and kingdoms in truth and
peace. And this Covenant we make in the presence of ALMIGHTY GOD, the
Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we
shall answer at that great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be
disclosed; most humbly beseeching the LORD to strengthen us by his HOLY
SPIRIT for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such
success as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and
encouragement to other Christian churches, groaning under, or in danger
of, the yoke of antichristian tyranny, to join in the same or like
association and covenant, to the glory of GOD, the enlargement of the
kingdom of JESUS CHRIST, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian
kingdoms and commonwealths.
LECTURER. Long prior to the Reformation persons were appointed to read
lectures, chiefly on the schoolmen, before the universities. Hence they
were called _lecturers_. From the universities they passed into
monasteries, and eventually into parishes: either upon the settlement of
a stipend to support them, or upon voluntary contribution of the
inhabitants under the licence of the bishop. The lecture in parish
churches was nothing more than a sermon, _extra ordinem_, as being no
part of the duty of the incumbent, and therefore delivered at such times
as not to interfere with his ministrations. Although lecturers were
continued after the Reformation, and we read of Travers being evening
lecturer at the Temple in the reign of Elizabeth, the first injunction
respecting them is in the canons of James I. In the year 1604 directions
for their conduct were issued by Archbishop Bancroft; and in 1622 the
Primate Abbot enjoined that no lecturer “should preach upon Sundays and
holy-days in the afternoon, but upon some part of the catechism, or some
text taken out of the creed, LORD’S Prayer, or ten commandments.” At
this period they do not appear to have been numerous; but, about the
year 1626, their numbers were much increased by twelve persons having
been legally empowered to purchase impropriations belonging to laymen,
with the proceeds of which they were allowed to provide parishes, where
the clergy were not qualified to preach, with preaching ministers, or
_lecturers_. The power thus granted to the feoffees of the
impropriations, ostensibly for the good of the Church, was soon abused,
and made a handle of by Puritanism in the appointment of unorthodox
preachers. Dr. Heylyn, in an act sermon, preached at Oxford, first
pointed out the evil of this new society. Accordingly, in 1633,
Archbishop Laud procured a bill to be exhibited by the attorney-general
in the Court of Exchequer against the feoffees, wherein they were
charged with diverting the charity wherewith they were intrusted to
other uses, by appointing a morning lecturer, a most violent Puritan, as
Clarendon also witnesses, to St. Antholin’s church, London, where no
preacher was required; and generally nominating nonconformists to their
lectureships. These charges having been established, the court condemned
their proceedings, as dangerous to the Church and State, at the same
time pronouncing the gifts and feoffments made to such uses illegal; and
so dissolved the same, confiscating the money to the king’s use. But
this judgment does not appear to have had the desired effect; since we
find the bishop of Norwich, three years afterwards, (1636,) certifying
that lecturers were very frequent in Suffolk, and many of them set up by
private gentlemen, without either consulting the ordinary, or observing
the canons and discipline of the Church. The lecturers in the country
were also said to run riot, and live wide of discipline. In 1637,
therefore, Laud proceeded with increased rigour against them, and
obtained the king’s instructions for prohibiting all lecturers
preaching, who refused to say the Common Prayer in hood and surplice—a
vestment which, being considered by them as a rag of Popery, they
refused to wear. So there seems every reason to coincide with the bishop
of London in his charge of 1842, wherein he assigns the origin of the
disuse of the surplice in preaching to these lecturers. They also
introduced the afternoon sermon, and thus, according to Archbishop Wake,
were the first to bring into disrepute the venerable custom of
catechising. When in 1641 the revenues of archbishops and bishops, deans
and chapters, were confiscated, the advowsons and impropriations
belonging to them were employed in providing lecturers, who, under the
garb of superior sanctity, “turned religion into rebellion, and faith
into faction.” For these, their innovations, their avarice, and their
faction, lecturers have been somewhat roughly handled by Selden in his
_Table Talk_.
After the Restoration their evil influence was sufficiently guarded
against by the Act of Uniformity, which enacts that no person shall be
allowed or received as a lecturer, unless he declare his unfeigned
assent and consent to the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Book of Common
Prayer, and to the use of all the rites, ceremonies, forms, and orders
therein contained. It is further enacted, that prayers shall always be
said before a lecture is delivered. Archbishop Sheldon (1665) issued the
last orders concerning lectures and lecturers. The incumbent may at any
time prevent a lecturer preaching by occupying the pulpit himself.
Lecturers of parishes are now generally elected by the vestry or
principal inhabitants, and are usually afternoon preachers. There are
also lecturers in some cathedral churches, as the divinity lectureship
at St. Paul’s, now a sinecure, (see _Prælector_,) and several
lectureships have been founded by private individuals, such as Lady
Moyer’s, Mr. Boyle’s, the Bampton at Oxford, and the Hulsean at
Cambridge. The act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 59, intituled “An act for better
regulating the offices of lecturers and parish clerks,” authorizes the
bishop, with the consent of the incumbent, to require a lecturer or
preacher to perform such clerical or ministerial duties, as assistant
curate, or otherwise, within the parish, &c., as the bishop, with the
assent of the incumbent, shall think proper. The following papers are to
be sent to the bishop by a clergyman to be licensed.
1. A certificate of his having been duly elected to the office, or an
appointment under the hand and seal of the person or persons having
power to appoint; on the face of which instrument it should be shown by
whom and in what manner the office had been vacated.
2. A certificate signed by the incumbent of the church, of his consent
to the election or appointment.
3. Letters of orders, deacon, and priest.
4. Letters testimonial, by three beneficed clergymen. (See _form No. 3,
for Stipendiary Curates_, adding “and moreover we believe him in our
consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be
licensed to the said lectureship.”)
Before the licence is granted, the same subscriptions, declarations, and
oaths are to be made and taken, as in the case of a licence to a
stipendiary curacy, and the lecturer is to read the Thirty-nine
Articles.
Within three months after he is licensed, he is to read, in the church
where he is appointed lecturer, the declaration appointed by the Act of
Uniformity, and also the certificate of his having subscribed it before.
LECTURES. (See _Bampton_, _Boyle_, _Donnellan_, _Hulsean_, _Moyer_, and
_Warburton_.)
LECTURN, or LECTERN. The reading desk in the choir of ancient churches
and chapels. The earliest examples remaining are of wood, many of them
beautifully carved. At a later period it was commonly of brass, often
formed of the figure of an eagle with out-spread wings. (See _Reading
Desk_ and _Eagle_.)
The lectern in English cathedrals generally stands in the midst of the
choir facing westwards. They were formerly more common in collegiate
churches and chapels than now, as ancient ground-plans and engravings
show. In many places the fine old eagles or carved desks are thrown into
a corner and neglected.
When the capitular members read the lessons, they usually do so from the
stalls. The regularity of this custom may be doubted; its impropriety is
evident. It appears from _Dugd. Mon._ viii. 1257, ed. 1830, that in
Lichfield cathedral, all, whether canons or vicars, anciently read the
collects and lessons, not from their own stalls, but from the proper
place: the dean alone being permitted to read from his stall. At
Canterbury the canons now use the lectern.
LEGATE. A person sent or deputed by another to act in his stead, but now
confined to those who are deputed by the pope. Of these there are three
kinds.
1. _Legati a latere_, cardinals sent _from the side_ or immediate
presence, and invested with most of the functions of the Roman pontiff
himself. They can absolve the excommunicated, call synods, grant
dispensations in cases reserved to the pope, fill up vacant dignities or
benefices, and hear ordinary appeals. Otho and Othobon, sent into
England by Gregory IX. and Clement IV. in the reign of Henry III., were
of this order. The legatine constitutions, or ecclesiastical laws
enacted in national synods convened by these cardinals, may be seen in
Johnson’s collections. Cardinal Wolsey was also a legate _a latere_, and
the bulls of Leo X. and Adrian VI., investing him with that high
function, are printed by Rymer, from which we learn that he was
empowered to visit the monasteries and the whole clergy of England, as
well as to dispense with the laws of the Church for a year. Cardinal
Pole was also _legatus a latere_.
2. _Legati nati_ are such as hold the legatine commission _ex officio_,
by virtue of office, and till the latter part of the tenth century they
were the legates usually employed by the papal power. Before the
Reformation, the archbishop of Canterbury was the _legatus natus_ of
England. It is a relic of the legatine authority which enables the
primate of all England to confer degrees independently of the
universities.
3. _Legati dati_, legates _given_, or special legates, hold authority
from the pope by special commission, and are, _pro tempore_, superior to
the other two orders. They began to be employed after the tenth century,
and displayed unbounded arrogance. They held councils, promulgated
canons, deposed bishops, and issued interdicts at their discretion.
Simple deacons are frequently invested with this office, which at once
places them above bishops.
It may be added, that the functions of a legate do not commence till he
is forty miles distant from Rome. The first legate sent into England was
John, precentor of St. Paul’s, and abbot of the monastery of St. Martin.
He was deputed by Agutho, bishop of Rome, to Theodore, archbishop of
Canterbury, in 679. The first legate in Ireland was Gille, or Gillebert,
bishop of Limerick early in the twelfth century. The Roman chants were
introduced by him into Britain.
It was one of the ecclesiastical privileges of England, from the Norman
Conquest, that no foreign legate should be obtruded upon the English,
unless the king should desire it, upon some extraordinary emergency, as
when a case was too difficult for the English prelates to determine.
Hence, in the reign of Henry II., when Cardinal Vivian, who was sent
legate into Scotland, Ireland, and Norway, arrived in England on his
journey thither, the king sent the bishops of Winchester and Ely to ask
him by whose authority he ventured into the kingdom without his leave:
nor was he suffered to proceed till he had given an oath not to stretch
his commission beyond his Highness’s pleasure in any particular.
LEGENDS. (_Legenda._) By this word we are to understand those idle and
ridiculous stories which the Romanists tell concerning their saints, and
other persons, in order to support the credit of their religion.
The _Legend_ was, originally, a book used in the old Romish churches,
containing the lessons that were to be read at Divine service. Hence the
lives of saints and martyrs came to be called _legends_, because
chapters were to be read out of them at matins, and in the refectories
of the religious houses. The _Golden Legend_ is a collection of the
lives of the saints, composed by James de Varase, better known by his
Latin name of John de Voragine, or Varagnie, vicar-general of the
Dominicans, and afterwards archbishop of Genoa, who died in 1298. It was
received in the Church of Rome with great applause, which it maintained
for 200 years; but, in truth, it is so full of ridiculous and romantic
stories, that the Romanists themselves are ashamed of them.
The Romish _Breviaries_ are full of legendary stories, which are
appointed to be read on the saints’ days; which, being almost as
numerous as the days in the year, there is hardly a day free from having
idle tales mixed in its service. However, there have been considerable
reformations made in this matter, several legends having been from time
to time retrenched, insomuch that the service of the Church of Rome is
much freer from these fooleries than formerly.
But, besides these written legends, there are others which may be called
traditionary; by which we mean those idle stories which are delivered by
word of mouth, and with which every traveller is entertained in his
passage through Popish countries. We will just give the reader a
specimen of these legends from Skippon.
At Mentz, in Germany, they relate that a drunken fellow swearing he
would kill the first man he met, a crucifix coming by him, he struck at
it with his sword, which drew blood from the crucifix, and the fellow
immediately sunk up to the knees in the ground, where he stood till the
magistrates apprehended him.
At Landsberg, in Bavaria, the Franciscans show a crucifix in their
church over the altar, which, they pretend, a fellow spewed upon, and
immediately the devil carried him away through the south wall, a round
window being made where the hole was.
At Aix-la-Chapelle, in Germany, is a church of our Lady, on the south
side of which is a great pair of brass gates, one of which has a crack
in the brass, occasioned, as the legend says, thus:—When Charlemagne
began the building of this church, the devil came and asked him what he
intended; the emperor told him he designed a gaming-house, which the
devil being very well satisfied with, went away. The emperor having set
up some altar-tables, the devil came again, and inquired what these
meant; Charlemagne replied, they were only for gamesters to play on,
which encouraged the devil to give his assistance toward the building.
Accordingly, he brought a great pair of brass gates on his shoulders;
but, seeing a crucifix, he took to his heels, letting the gates fall,
one of which in the fall received the crack, which is still shown.
At Milan, they tell you that St. Ambrose, who was bishop of that city,
after a fight between the Catholics and the Arians, prayed that it might
be revealed how to distinguish the bodies of one party from the other.
His request was granted, and he found all the Catholics with their faces
upwards, and the Arians with their faces downward.
At St. Agatha, a city of Calabria, is a chapel, in which they show a
piece of a pillar, kept in a glass case, which they say shined when St.
Paul preached there. It was broken by the Turks, when they took this
place, and this piece was kept at Messina till they brought it hither.
The Jesuits would have carried it to their college, but several men,
they pretend, could not stir it; nevertheless, when it was resolved to
place it in this chapel, one man’s strength was sufficient.
We will add but one legend more. At Malta they tell this story. Three
Maltese knights were taken prisoners by the Turks, and carried before
the Grand Seignior, who endeavoured, by sending priests to them, to
convert them from the Christian religion; but they continued stedfast.
The Grand Seignior’s daughter observing them, fell in love with them,
and told her father she would endeavour their conversion. After this,
she discovered to them her affection; but they informed her of their
obligation to live chastely, and discoursed about the Christian
religion, and their order, and promised to show her the true
representation of the Virgin Mary. Accordingly, they undertook to carve
a piece of wood; but none of them being skilful in that art, they prayed
for assistance, and suddenly appeared the image of the Virgin shaped
exactly like her. Upon the sight of this, the princess turned Christian,
and procuring the means of their escape, went away with them, and placed
herself in a nunnery.—_Broughton._
LEGION, THUNDERING. In the wars of the Romans, under the emperor Marcus
Antoninus, with the Marcomanni, the Roman troops being surrounded by the
enemy, and in great distress from intense thirst, in the midst of a
burning desert, a legion of Christians, who served in the army,
imploring the merciful interposition of CHRIST, suddenly a storm with
thunder and lightning came on, which refreshed the fainting Romans with
its seasonable rain, while the lightning fell among the enemy, and
destroyed many of them. The Christian legion to whose prayers this
miraculous interposition was granted, was (according to the common
account) thenceforth called _The Thundering Legion_.
LEIRE. (Probably a corruption of the old French _lieure_, for _livre_, a
book.) A Service Book. “Two great _leires_, garnished with stones, and
two lesser _leires_, garnished with stones and pearls,” are mentioned
among the furniture of the communion table of the Royal Chapel, 1565, in
Leland’s Collectania, vol. ii. pp. 691, 692, 1770.—_Jebb._
LENT. (A Teutonic word: in German, _Lenz_, the “Spring.”) The holy
seasons appointed by the Church will generally be found to date their
rise from some circumstance in the life of our LORD, some event in
Scripture history, or a desire to keep in remembrance the virtues and
piety of the saints who adorned the early Church. But the origin of the
season of Lent is not so obvious, though it is usually supposed that
Lent is observed in commemoration of our SAVIOUR’S temptation and
fasting of forty days in the wilderness. It is most probable that the
Christian Lent originated from a regard to those words of the REDEEMER,
“the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them,
and then shall they fast in those days.” We learn from the history of
the Church that the primitive Christians considered, that in this
passage CHRIST has alluded to the institution of a particular season of
fasting and prayer in his future Church. Accordingly they, in the first
instance, began this solemn period on the afternoon of the day on which
they commemorated the _crucifixion_, and continued it until the morning
of that of the _resurrection_. The whole interval would thus be only
about forty hours. But by degrees this institution suffered a
considerable change, different however at different times and places.
From the forty hours, or the two days, originally observed, it was
extended to other additional days, but with great variety in their
number, according to the judgment of the various Churches. Some fasted
three days in the week before Easter, some four, and others six. A
little after, some extended the fast to three weeks, and others to six,
and other Churches appointed certain portions of seven weeks in
succession. The result of all this was the eventual fixing of the time
at forty days, commencing on the Wednesday in the seventh week before
Easter, and excluding the intermediate Sundays. It is not, however, to
be supposed that the Church remained long in uncertainty on this point,
for it appears that the Lent of forty days can be traced to a period
very near that of the apostles. That its term of forty days was settled
at a very early period, is evident from the writings of the bishops of
those times, who refer us, in vindication of it, to the example of
Moses, Elias, and our LORD, all of whom fasted forty days. From all
this, then, we arrive at the conclusion, that though fasting is
frequently alluded to in the Scriptures as a Christian duty, yet the
_set times_ for it are to be referred solely to the authority of the
Church. It may here be remarked, that the name we apply to this season
is derived from the time of the year when it occurs. The term _Lent_, in
the Saxon language, signifies _Spring_; and, as we use it, indicates
merely the spring fast, preparatory to the rising of CHRIST from the
grave.
The Lenten fast does not embrace _all_ the days included between Ash
Wednesday and Easter, for the _Sundays_ are so many days above the
number of forty. They are excluded, because the LORD’S day is always
held as a _festival_, and never as a _fast_. These six Sundays are,
therefore, called Sundays _in_ Lent, not Sundays _of_ Lent. They are in
the midst of it, but do not form part of it. On them we continue,
without interruption, to celebrate our SAVIOUR’S resurrection.
The principal days of Lent are, the first day, Passion Week, and
particularly the Thursday and Friday in that week. The first day of Lent
was formerly called the _head of the fast_, and also by the name which
the Church retains—Ash Wednesday. In the Church of England there is a
solemn service appointed for Ash Wednesday, under the title of a
“Commination, or denouncing of GOD’S Anger and Judgments against
Sinners.” This was designed to occupy, as far as could be, the place of
the ancient penitential discipline, as is sufficiently declared in the
beginning of the office in the English Prayer Book. The last week of
Lent, called Passion Week, has always been considered as its most solemn
season. It is called the Great Week, from the important transactions
which are then commemorated; and Holy Week, from the increase of
devotional exercises among believers. The Thursday in Passion Week is
that on which we celebrate the institution of the LORD’S supper. The
Epistle for the day has been selected by the Church with a view to this
fact. On the following day we commemorate the sufferings, and
particularly the death, of our SAVIOUR CHRIST. And, from the mighty and
blessed effects of these, in the redemption of man, the day is
appropriately called Good Friday. As this day has been kept holy by the
Church from the earliest times, so has it also been made a time of the
strictest devotion and humiliation.
The general design of this institution is thus set forth by St.
Chrysostom: “Why do we fast these forty days? Many heretofore were used
to come to the communion indevoutly, and inconsiderately, especially at
this time, when CHRIST first gave it to his disciples. Therefore our
forefathers, considering the mischiefs arising from such careless
approaches, meeting together, appointed forty days for fasting and
prayer, and hearing of sermons, and for holy assemblies; that all men in
these days being carefully purified by prayer and alms-deeds, and
fasting, and watching, and tears, and confession of sins, and other the
like exercises, might come, according to their capacity, with a pure
conscience, to the holy table.”
But if we inquire more particularly into the reasons of instituting the
Lent fast, we shall find them to be these following: First, the
apostles’ sorrow for the loss of their Master. For this reason, the
ancients observed these two days in which our Saviour lay in the grave,
with the greatest strictness. Secondly, the declension of Christian
piety from its first and primitive fervour. Thirdly, that the
catechumens might prepare themselves for baptism, and the penitents for
absolution; Easter being one of the settled times of baptizing the
catechumens, and absolving the penitents.
This solemn season of fasting was universally observed by all
Christians, though with a great liberty, and a just allowance for men’s
infirmities; and this was in a great measure left to their own
discretion. If men were in health, and able to bear it, the rule and
custom was for them to observe it. On the other hand, bodily infirmity
and weakness were always admitted as a just apology for their
non-observance of it.
The manner of observing Lent, among those who were piously disposed to
observe it, was to abstain from all food till evening. Whence it is
natural to conclude, that the pretence of keeping Lent only by a change
of diet from flesh to fish, is but a mock fast, and an innovation
utterly unknown to the ancients, whose Lent fast was a strict and
rigorous abstinence from all food till the evening. Their refreshment
was only a supper, and then it was indifferent whether it was flesh, or
any other food, provided it was used with sobriety and moderation. But
there was no general rule about this matter, as appears from the story
which Sozomen tells of Spiridion, bishop of Trimithus in Cyprus: that a
stranger once happening to call upon him in Lent, he, having nothing in
his house but a piece of pork, ordered that to be dressed and set before
him: but the stranger refusing to eat flesh, saying he was a Christian;
Spiridion replied, For that very reason thou oughtest not to refuse it;
for the word of GOD has pronounced all things clean to them that are
clean.
Lent was thought the proper season for exercising more abundantly all
sorts of charity. Thus what they spared from their own bodies, by
abridging them of a meal, was usually given to the poor. They likewise
employed their vacant hours in visiting the sick and imprisoned, in
entertaining strangers, and reconciling differences. The imperial laws
forbade all prosecution of men in criminal actions, which might bring
them to corporal punishment and torture, during this whole season. Lent
was a time of more than ordinary strictness and devotion; and therefore,
in many of the great churches, they had religious assemblies for prayer
and preaching every day. They had also frequent communions at this time,
at least on every sabbath and LORD’S day. All public games and
stage-plays were prohibited at this season; as also the celebration of
all festivals, birthdays, and marriages, as unsuitable to the present
occasion.
These were the common rules observed in keeping the Lent fast, when it
was come to the length of forty days. But there was one week, called the
_Hebdomas magna_, or the _Great Week_ before Easter, which they observed
with a greater strictness and solemnity than all the rest. This is
usually called the _Passion Week_, because it was the week in which our
SAVIOUR _suffered_. (See _Passion Week_.)
The Christians of the Greek Church observe _four Lents_. The first
commences on the fifteenth of November, or forty days before Christmas.
The second is our Lent, which immediately precedes Easter. The third
begins the week after Whitsunday, and continues till the festival of St.
Peter and St. Paul. The number of days therefore comprised in the Lent
is not settled and determined, but they are more or less, according as
Whitsunday falls sooner or later. Their fourth Lent commences the first
of August, and lasts no longer than till the fifteenth. These Lents are
observed with great strictness and austerity. On Saturdays and Sundays
they indulge themselves in drinking wine and using oil, which are
prohibited on other days.
Lent was first commanded to be observed, in England, by Ercombert,
seventh king of Kent (A. D. 640–660). No meat was, formerly, to be eaten
in Lent, but by licence, under certain penalties. And butchers were not
to kill flesh in Lent, except for victualling of ships, &c.—_Compiled
from various authorities._
LESSONS, among ecclesiastical writers, are portions of the Holy
Scriptures read in churches at the time of Divine service. In the
ancient Church, reading the Scriptures was one part of the service of
the catechumens, at which all persons were allowed to be present in
order to obtain instruction.
The lessons in the unreformed offices are in general very short. Nine
lessons are appointed to be read at matins on Sundays, and three on
every week-day, besides a chapter, or capitular, at each of the six
daily services. But of the nine Sunday lessons, only three are from
Scripture, the six others being extracts from homilies or martyrologies.
At matins only is there anything like a continuous lesson read. The
capitula or lectioner verses at the other services, are each nothing
more than one verse (very rarely two short verses) from Scripture, and
these are seldom varied. As to the matin lessons, they do not on an
average consist of more than three verses each: for though the three
lessons are generally in sequence, the sense is interrupted by the
interposition between each lesson of a responsory, versicles, and the
Gloria Patri, so that edification is hereby effectually hindered, as is
remarked in the Preface to our Common Prayer, “Concerning the Service of
the Church.”—_Jebb._
The Church of England in the appointment of lessons observes two
different courses; one for ordinary days, and another for holy-days. On
ordinary days she begins the course of her first lessons with the book
of Genesis, in the beginning of her civil year, January; and proceeds
regularly through the greatest part of the Bible. Isaiah alone is not
read in the order in which it stands; our Church reserving the
evangelical prophet, in conformity to primitive usage, to be read in the
season of Advent. Before Isaiah, and after the other canonical
Scriptures, the Church substitutes some apocryphal lessons in the room
of the canonical Scripture that has been omitted.
But though the most part of the Bible is read through every year once,
yet some chapters of particular books, and three whole books, are left
unread for reasons that sufficiently appear.
Of Genesis, (containing 50 chapters,) 10, 11, and 36 are not read; 10
and 36, evidently, because they contain little else than genealogies.
The first nine verses of chapter 11, giving an account of a most
extraordinary display of the Divine power, the confusion of tongues at
Babel, is received into the table of lessons for holy days, viz. Monday
in Whitsun week. Of Exodus, (40 chapters,) the first 24 chapters are
read, excepting some repetitions and genealogies in the latter part of
chapter 6. From chapter 25 to the end of the book, there is little that
does not relate to the ark, and other local and temporary particulars,
except chapters 32, 33, 34, which are accordingly read. Chapters 35 and
40 are retained in the Scottish calendar. Of Leviticus, (27 chapters,)
as it treats chiefly of Jewish sacrifices, and ceremonial observances of
clean and unclean beasts and birds, lepers, &c., only 4 chapters are
read, viz. the 18, 19, 20, and 26. In the Scottish calendar the 9, 12,
16, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 27 are retained. Of Numbers, (36 chapters,) the
first 10 chapters are omitted, which relate to the men of war, the
Levites, their services and offerings. Chapters 15, 18, 19, 26, 28, 29,
33, and 34 are also omitted, as containing similar subjects; the
Scottish liturgy retains chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 15. All
Deuteronomy (34 chapters) is read, except chapter 23, which the Scottish
calendar retains, while it rejects chapter 14. In Joshua, (24 chapters,)
the history contained from chapter 11 to 22, treating of the destruction
of several kings, and the division of the land of Canaan, is not read;
but chapters 14, 20, and 22 are retained in the Scottish calendar. The
whole of the book of Judges is read, (21 chapters,) and also that of
Ruth (4 chapters). So are also the two books of Samuel (the first,
“otherwise called the First Book of the Kings,” containing 31 chapters;
and the second, “otherwise called the Second Book of the Kings,”
containing 24 chapters). Also the two Books of Kings (the first,
“commonly called the Third Book of the Kings,” containing 22 chapters,
and the second, “commonly called the Fourth Book of the Kings,”
containing 25 chapters). Both the Books of Chronicles (the first
containing 29 chapters, and the second 36 chapters) are entirely
omitted, probably because they consist of the details of facts which are
related in the preceding historical books. In the Scottish calendar, 1
Chronicles, chap. 10, is to be read instead of the apocryphal lessons,
at morning prayer on November 23; and then from 13 to 22, with 28, 29,
and 30. Of 2 Chronicles, 1, 2, 5, 6, &c. to 36, are read, extending to
evening prayer, on December 16. Of Ezra, (10 chapters,) chapter 2, being
a catalogue of names, is omitted, as are also chapters 8 and 10, partly
for the same reason. In the Scottish calendar, chapter 7 is omitted, and
8 and 10 retained. Of Nehemiah, (13 chapters,) 3, 7, 11, and 12,
consisting of the names of the builders of the wall, genealogies, &c.,
are omitted. Of Esther, (10 chapters,) the 10th, containing only three
verses, is omitted, probably on that account. In the Scottish calendar
chapters 9 and 10 make one lesson; a rare occurrence in that calendar,
but frequent in ours. The whole of the Book of Job (consisting of 42
chapters) is read. The Book of Psalms (150) is passed over as being
otherwise used. Of Proverbs, (31 chapters,) chapter 30, the Prayer of
Agur, &c., is alone omitted; but the Scottish calendar retains it. The
book of Ecclesiastes (12 chapters) is read throughout; but the whole of
the Song of Solomon (8 chapters) is omitted; as containing mystical
descriptions not likely to edify. The Jews did not permit this book to
be read by any one under thirty years of age. The whole Book of Isaiah
is read, (66 chapters,) but not in its regular place, as before
remarked; the 1st chapter being read on the 23rd of November, and the
66th concluding the year. In the Scottish calendar it retains its proper
place. The whole of Jeremiah (52 chapters) with the Lamentations of
Jeremiah (5 chapters) are read throughout. Of Ezekiel (48 chapters) only
9 are read, viz. 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18, 33, and 34. For the omission of
so large a portion may be assigned the reason given for the omission of
almost the whole of the Revelation. It consists in a great degree of
visions, many of which are very obscure even to the most learned. The
Scottish liturgy retains nearly the whole book. The remainder of the Old
Testament is read through regularly, viz. Daniel, 12 chapters; Hosea, 14
chapters; Joel, 3 chapters; Amos, 9 chapters; Obadiah, 1 chapter; Jonah,
4 chapters; Micah, 7 chapters; Nahum, 3 chapters; Habakkuk, 3 chapters;
Zephaniah, 3 chapters; Haggai, 2 chapters; Zechariah, 14 chapters;
Malachi, 4 chapters.
See more fully, as to the subjects of the omitted chapters, _Bennet’s
Paraphrase, Common Prayer_, Appendix; and _Shepherd, Common Prayer_.
Of the apocryphal lessons, (from ἀπὸ τῆς κρύπτης, _removed from the
place, or chest_ where the sacred books were kept; or from ἀποκρυπτω,
_to conceal or hide_; i. e. either as being kept from the people, or as
not being canonical; and see fully _Hey’s Lectures_, and _Bingham’s
Antiquities_, book xiv. ch. 3, sec. 15, 16,) those read and those
omitted are as follows:—The whole of Esdras (2 books, of 9 and 16
chapters) is omitted. The whole book of Tobit (14 chapters) is read,
except chapter 5. The whole of Judith (16 chapters) is read. The
remainder of the Book of Esther (6½ chapters) is passed over. The Wisdom
of Solomon (19 chapters) is read throughout. And the whole of the Wisdom
of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, (51 chapters,) except the
26, and part of the 25, 30, and 46. The whole of Baruch is read (6
chapters). But the Song of the Three Children, (1 chapter,) a
continuation of Daniel iii. 23, is omitted; principally, perhaps, as the
greater part of it is the “Benedicite,” &c. The History of Susannah (1
chapter) and that of Bel and the Dragon (1 chapter) are both read. The
two Books of Maccabees (16 chapters and 15 chapters) are omitted.
We fix articles of faith, and things necessary to salvation, upon the
Scriptures; we do not allow any part of the apocrypha a casting voice in
the establishment of any doctrine.—_Boys on the Thirty-Nine Articles._
The New Testament is read through three times in the year, for the
second lessons; i. e. the Four Gospels and the Acts, for the second
lessons in the morning service; and the Epistles (the Revelation of St.
John being omitted) for the second lesson in the evening service. The
Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Romans, beginning
respectively on the 1st day of January—the 3rd and 2nd of May—and the
31st of August—the 1st chapter of St. Luke being, on the first and third
reading, divided into two portions, and the 7th chapter of Acts on the
third reading. Of the Epistles, the 2nd and 3rd chapters of 1 Timothy
and of Titus, are read together; as are also the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of
St. John, on the first and second reading, but not on the third. This
order is broken into only on four Sundays in the year, i. e. the sixth
Sunday in Lent, (or Sunday before Easter,) Easter day, Whitsunday, and
Trinity Sunday, but more frequently in holy-days; for all which days
proper lessons are appointed.
The Book of the Revelation of St. John is wholly omitted, except on his
own peculiar day, when the 1st and 22nd chapters (the first and the
last) are read; and on All-saints day, when part of the 19th chapter is
read.
When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, we appear to be left in some
degree of uncertainty, whether the first lesson together with the
service for the holy-day, or that for the Sunday, is to be read. The
consequence is, says Archdeacon Sharp, (_Visit._ ch. 3, Disc. iv.,) that
the clergy differ in their practice, and use the service appropriated to
that festival, to which, in their private opinion, they give the
preference. Some choose to intermix them, using the collects appointed
to each, and preferring the first lesson for the Sunday, taken out of a
canonical book, to that for the holy-day, if it happens to be appointed
in the Apocrypha. Uniformity of practice was certainly intended by the
Church, and what now may seem to require the direction of a rubric, or
at least the decision of the diocesan, our forefathers, in all
probability, thought sufficiently plain. They knew that, prior to the
Reformation, (admitting that the practice of England corresponded with
that of the Roman and Gallican Churches,) the service for all the
holy-days now retained being “Doubles,” generally took place of that
appointed for ordinary Sundays, excepting those of Advent and Lent, with
Easter day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday. They would, therefore,
naturally read the service for the saint’s day, and omit that for the
Sunday in general. This continues to be the practice of the Roman
Church, and it was the practice of the Gallican Church for more than a
century after the æra of our Reformation. In some parts of the late
Gallican Church a change took place about the beginning of the present
century, and the service for the Sunday was appointed to supersede that
for the saint’s day. But in our Church no such alterations have been
made by lawful authority. Hence it would appear that the service for the
saint’s day, and not that for the Sunday, should be used. And
notwithstanding there exists some diversity of opinion on this subject,
yet the most general practice seems to be to read the collect, Epistle,
and Gospel for the saint’s day; and it is most consonant to that
practice to read also the first lesson appropriated to that day. This
remark I have heard made by the lord bishop of London.—_Shepherd._
When the feast day falls upon a Sunday, it was ordered in the service of
Sarum, that the Sunday service should give way to the proper service
ordained for the festival, except some peculiar Sunday only, and then
the one or the other was transferred to some day of the week
following.—_Bp. Cosin._
LETTERS OF ORDERS. (See _Orders_.) The bishop’s certificate of his
having ordained a clergyman, either priest or deacon. Churchwardens have
the power to demand a sight of the letters of orders of any one offering
to assist in the church of which they are the guardians.
LEVITICUS, a canonical book of Scripture, being the third book of the
Pentateuch of Moses; thus called because it contains principally the
laws and regulations relating to the priests, the Levites, and
sacrifices; for which reason the Hebrews call it the priests’ law,
because it includes many ordinances concerning sacrifices. The Jews term
it likewise _Vajicra_, because in Hebrew it begins with this word, which
signifies, “_and he called_.”
All the world agree, that Leviticus is a canonical book, and of Divine
authority. It, as well as the rest of the Pentateuch, is generally held
to be the work of Moses. It contains the history of what passed during
the eight days of Aaron’s and his sons’ consecration, which was
performed in the year of the world 2514. The laws which were prescribed
in it upon other subjects, besides sacrifices, have no other
chronological mark, whereby we may be directed to judge at what time
they were given. Only four chapters of Leviticus are read in our Church,
as remarked in the article on _Lessons_.
LIBELLATICI. A designation of one kind of the lapsed from Christianity
in times of persecution. They are first mentioned in the Decian
persecution, and the origin of the name seems to have been this. It is
probable that the emperor had decreed that every one who was accused or
suspected of being a Christian, should be permitted to purge himself
before a magistrate, on which occasion a _libellus_ or certificate was
given him, that he had never been a Christian, or that he had abjured
the name of CHRIST. Some Christians, who were not so abandoned as to
forsake the true faith utterly, were yet weak and dishonest enough to
procure those _libelli_, or certificates, by fraudulent compromise with
the magistrate: thus avoiding, as they might hope, the sin of apostasy,
and at the same time escaping the sufferings and penalties of convicted
Christians. The Church, however, refused to sanction their deceit and
cowardice, and they were classed among the lapsed, though not considered
quite so culpable as the _Sacrificati_ and _Thurificati_.
LIBERTINES. A sect of Christian heretics, whose ringleaders were
Quintin, a tailor of Picardy, and one Copin, who about 1525 divulged
their errors in Holland and Brabant: they maintained that whatsoever was
done by men, was done by the SPIRIT OF GOD; and from thence concluded
there was no sin, but to those that thought it so, because all came from
GOD: they added, that to live without any doubt or scruple, was to
return to the state of innocency, and allowed their followers to call
themselves either Catholics or Lutherans, according as the company they
lighted amongst, were.
LIGHTS ON THE ALTAR. Among the ornaments of the Church enjoined by the
laws, and sanctioned by the usage of the Church of England, are two
lights upon the altar, to be a symbol to the people that CHRIST, in his
two-fold nature, is the very true Light of the world.
The laws of the Church, to which we refer, are as follows:
The rubric immediately preceding “the Order for Morning and Evening
Prayer daily throughout the Year” stands thus:—
“_And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the Church and of
the ministers thereof at all times of their ministration shall be
retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by authority
of parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward VI._”
But the rubrics are a part of the laws of the Church, framed by
convocation, and ratified by parliament; so that, if it appear that in
the second year of King Edward VI. lights were used, as in this rubric
is mentioned, no authority short of a convocation for the Church, and
for the State an act of parliament, can reverse the authority on which
lights are still used upon the altar.
Now, in the injunctions of King Edward VI., set forth in 1547, it is
expressly ordered, “_that all deans, archdeacons, parsons, vicars, and
other ecclesiastical persons, shall suffer, from henceforth, no torches
nor candles, tapers, or images of wax, to be set before any image or
picture_. BUT ONLY TWO LIGHTS UPON THE HIGH ALTAR, BEFORE THE SACRAMENT,
WHICH, FOR THE SIGNIFICATION THAT CHRIST IS THE VERY TRUE LIGHT OF THE
WORLD, THEY SHALL SUFFER TO REMAIN STILL.”
Some persons who are ignorant of the history of those times, object that
this injunction is not to the purpose, because we have no high altar:
the truth is, that it is the high altar alone which is left in our
churches, all the rest being removed by authority, on account of the
idolatrous and corrupt practices which were connected with them.
It is also objected by some, who would be above falling into so great
and unhappy a mistake as to suppose that the high altar is removed from
our churches, that “the sacrament” before which, on the altar, the
lights were to remain, is taken away; for by this term, say they, was
meant the consecrated wafer, suspended in a pyx on the altar. If, then,
this is taken away, so also must the lights be taken away which were to
burn before it. But even allowing that the sacrament, in this sense, is
removed, yet the injunction gives another reason for lights, and may
surely be allowed to speak its meaning better than those who must, to
serve their turn, give to it an idolatrous meaning. The injunction does
not say that the lights are to remain before the sacrament as an
additional kind of adoration of the host, but _for the signification
that_ CHRIST _is the very true light of the world_. It would be very
illiberal to suppose that those who quarrel with the lights deny the
truth which they are thus made by authority to symbolize; but it is
really strange that they will overlook this sound reason given by the
injunction, in order to set forth a questionable reason not given, by
way of getting rid of the obnoxious lights.
But the injunction not only thus explains itself, but is interpreted by
the custom of the Church to enjoin the use of lights for the
signification that CHRIST is the very true light of the world, after the
pyx had been removed; for, from the time of Edward, there seems never to
have been a time when the lights were not retained in cathedral
churches, and wherever we might look for an authoritative interpretation
of the law. And to the present day the candles are to be seen on the
altar of almost all the cathedrals. In collegiate churches, also, they
are usually found; and so also in the chapels royal, and in the chapels
of the several colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. The use of these
ornaments in Oxford and Cambridge is a matter of special importance, for
it serves to give a singular character to the objection which some, even
of the clergy, make to the candles on the ground of novelty. Almost
every clergyman must again and again have seen on the altar of his
college chapel these appropriate and symbolical ornaments; and yet some
clergymen, when they wish to condemn them elsewhere, so far forget what
they have seen as to call them a novelty.