The Montanists, finding themselves exposed to the censure of the whole

Church, formed a schism, and set up a distinct society, under the

direction of those who called themselves prophets. Montanus, in

conjunction with Priscilla and Maximilla, was at the head of the sect.

These sectaries made no alteration in the creed. They only held that the

HOLY SPIRIT made Montanus his organ for delivering a more perfect form

of discipline than that which was delivered by the apostles. They

refused communion for ever to those who were guilty of notorious crimes,

and believed that the bishops had no authority to reconcile them. They

held it unlawful to fly in time of persecution. They condemned second

marriages, allowed the dissolution of marriage, and observed three

Lents.

The Montanists became separated into two branches, one of which were the

disciples of Proclus, and the other of Æschines. The latter are charged

with following the heterodoxy of Praxeas and Sabellius concerning the

Trinity. The celebrated Tertullian was a Montanist.

MONUMENT. The memorial placed over the body of a Christian, after his

burial in consecrated ground.

The earliest monuments in England which have come down to us are,

perhaps, not older than the Norman Conquest; and the most ancient is the

simplest form. A stone coffin is covered with a single stone slab, which

is also the only recipient of whatever device may be designed to

commemorate the tenant of the narrow dwelling over which it closes. So

early as the middle of the ninth century, (840,) Kenneth, king of

Scotland, made an ordinance that such coffins should be adorned with the

sign of the cross, in token of sanctity, on which no one was on any

account to tread; and, perhaps, there were none but purely religious

emblems employed for some generations after this time. The sign of the

cross still continued for centuries the most usual ornament of tombs,

but by-and-by it became associated with others which were most of them

intended to designate the profession of him whose dust they honoured.

Hence we have the crosier and mitre, with perhaps a chalice and paten,

upon the tomb of an ecclesiastic, of an abbot, or a bishop; the knight

has a sword, and his shield at first plain, but afterwards charged with

his arms on his tomb. Sometimes an approach to religious allegory is

discovered on monuments even of these very early ages, such as, for

instance, the cross or crosier stuck into the mouth of a serpent or

cockatrice, indicating the victory of the cross and of the Church over

the devil. These, and the like devices, occurring before any attempt at

the human figure was made, are in a low relief, or indented outline.

By-and-by the human figure was added, recumbent, and arrayed in the

dress of the individual commemorated; and this figure soon rose from low

relief to an effigy in full proportions. The knight and the ecclesiastic

are now discovered so perfectly attired according to their order and

degree, that the antiquary gathers his knowledge of costume from these

venerable remains. Some affecting lessons of mortality are now forcibly

inculcated by circumstances introduced into the sepulchre; for instance,

the figure of the deceased appears nearly reduced to a skeleton, and

laid in a shroud; a few instances occur in which the corpse thus

represented is below a representation of the living person. Another

interesting intimation of the character of the deceased appears in the

crossed legs of those who had vowed a pilgrimage to the Holy Land; and

the lion is frequently found, as well as the serpent, at the feet of the

recumbent figure, perhaps in allusion to the words of the psalmist,

“Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon

shalt thou trample under thy feet.”

All this time the tomb has been gradually increasing in height and in

general splendour, the sides are adorned with figures in several

compartments, which run into niches or panels, according to the advance

of architectural design, and at last they are surmounted with an arch,

low at first and little decorated, but afterwards very elaborately

wrought into a rich canopy. Religious allegories become more complex on

the sides of the tomb, and we have instances of some which have since

been borrowed by artists of name, and perhaps accounted new by many; for

instance, it is not rare to see a representation of the soul of the

dying conveyed to heaven by angels, while the corpse lies upon the

litter, and this was a design chosen for the cenotaph of the Princess

Charlotte. The relatives of the deceased are sometimes represented by

many small statues in the niches; or armorial bearings are introduced,

sparing at first, and often, as on the tomb of Lionell Lord Wells, in

Methley church, supported on the breasts of angels. Angels also

frequently support the head of the recumbent figure, and at the feet are

sometimes one or more priests with an open book in their hands. The

space in the wall behind the tomb and beneath the canopy allows of

allegorical devices, sometimes in fresco, sometimes in mosaic. But what

most demands attention are the recumbent figures themselves, generally

with both hands raised in the attitude of prayer; or, if they be

bishops, with the right hand as if giving a blessing. The effigies of

the man and his wife appear always on the same tomb, lying side by side,

and in the same pious attitude; a frequently recurring sight, which

inspired the lines of Piers Plowman:—

“=Knyghts in ther conisance clad for the nones,

Alle it semed seyntes ysacred opon erthe,

And lovely ladies ywrought leyen by her sides.=”

And surely there is a beauty and propriety in that character of

monuments for Christian men in Christian churches, which could suggest

the words,

=“Alle it semed seyntes ysacred opon erthe,”=

far greater than we recognise in the vain-glorious boastings of success

in secular pursuits, perhaps even in sinful undertakings, which cumber

church walls. It is a holier thought to remember what was sacred in the

Christian man; who, imperfect as he may have been, was yet, as he was a

Christian, in some sense a saint, and to embody it in some pious

attitude upon his tomb, than to forget everything that is Christian, and

to celebrate only the secular or the vicious.

Gorgeous as some of these tombs are, they did not satisfy the splendour

of that age, and the canopy swells into an actual chapel, sometimes in

the body of the larger church, as that of William of Wykeham, in

Winchester, and those of Cardinal Beaufort, and Bishops Waynflete and

Fox, in the same cathedral. Sometimes the chapel is a building complete

in itself, as that of the Beauchamps, at St. Mary’s church, Warwick, and

that of Henry VII. at Westminster.

MORALITIES, MYSTERIES, and MIRACLES. A kind of theatrical

representations, which were made by the monks, friars, and other

ecclesiastics of the middle ages, the vehicle of instruction to the

people. Their general character was the same, but the _miracles_ may be

distinguished as those which represented the miracles wrought by the

holy confessors, and the sufferings by which the perseverance of the

martyrs was manifested; of which kind the first specified by name is a

scenic representation of the legend of St. Catherine. The _moralities_

were certain allegorical representations of virtues or vices, always so

contrived as to make virtue seem desirable, and vice ridiculous and

deformed. The _mysteries_ were representations often of great length,

and requiring several days’ performance, of the Scripture narrative, or

of several parts of it, as, for instance, the descent of CHRIST into

hell. Of these mysteries two complete series have lately been published

from ancient manuscripts, _the Townley Mysteries_, performed by the

monks of Woodchurch, near Wakefield, and the different leading companies

of that town; and _the Coventry Mysteries_, performed with like help of

the trades in Coventry, by the Grey Friars of that ancient city. Both of

these collections begin with the creation, and carry on the story in

different pageants or scenes until the judgment-day.

It will not be supposed that these plays are free from the deformities

of every other kind of literature of the times to which they are

referred; nor that the performance of them was without a great deal more

of the coarseness of an unrefined age than would be tolerated now:

neither need it be concealed that the theology therein embodied was

sometimes rather Popish than Catholic.

On the whole it may fairly be said, that these _miracles_, _mysteries_,

and _moralities_, were wholesome for the times; and that though they

afterwards degenerated into actual abuses, yet that they are not to be

condemned without measure and without mercy.

Their history and character are interesting, not only as giving a fair

picture of the character of remote ages, but also because they seem to

be the original from which arose stage plays and oratorios.

As a specimen of these old moralities see in Dodsley’s collection of Old

Plays—_God’s Promises_, by Bale, bishop of Ossory, which dramatizes the

leading events of the Sacred History. It was printed in 1538.

MORAVIANS, or UNITED BRETHREN. A sect generally said to have arisen

under Nicholas Lewis, count of Zinzendorf, a German nobleman of the last

century, and thus called because the first converts to the system were

some Moravian families. According to the society’s own account, however,

they derive their origin from the Greek Church in the ninth century,

when, by the instrumentality of Methodius and Cyrillus, two Greek monks,

the kings of Bulgaria and Moravia, being converted to the faith, were,

together with their subjects, united in communion with the Greek Church.

Methodius was their first bishop, and for their use Cyrillus translated

the Scriptures into the Sclavonian language.

It is sometimes supposed that because the Moravians have bishops, they

are less to be blamed than other dissenting sects. But, to say nothing

of the doubt that exists with respect to the validity of their orders,

an episcopal church may be, as the Moravians and Romanists of this

country are, in a state of schism. And the very fact that the difference

between them and the Church is not great, if this be so, makes the sin

of their schism, in not conforming, yet greater.

Though the Brethren acknowledge no other standard of truth than the

sacred Scriptures, they in general profess to adhere to the Augsburg

Confession of Faith. Both in their Summary of Christian Doctrine, which

is used for the instruction of their children, and in their general

instructions and sermons, they teach the doctrine of the Trinity; and in

their prayers, hymns, and litanies address the FATHER, SON, and HOLY

GHOST, in the same manner as is done in other Christian Churches; yet

they chiefly direct their hearers to JESUS CHRIST, as the appointed

channel of the Deity, in whom GOD is known and made manifest unto man.

They dwell upon what he has done and suffered, and upon the glorious

descriptions given of him as an Almighty Saviour. They recommend love to

him, as the constraining principle of the Christian’s conduct; and their

general manner is more by beseeching men to be reconciled to GOD, than

by alarming them with the terrors of the law, and the threatenings

against the impenitent, which they, however, do not fail occasionally to

set before their hearers. They avoid, as much as possible, everything

that would lead to controversy; and though they strongly insist upon

salvation by grace alone through faith, yet they will not enter into any

explanation, or give any decided opinion, concerning particular

election. They have, therefore, been considered by high Calvinists as

leaning to Arminianism, and by others as Calvinists; but they themselves

decline the adoption of either name, and conceive that the gospel may be

preached by both. They profess to believe that the kingdom of CHRIST is

not confined to any party, community, or church; and they consider

themselves, though closely united in one body or visible Church, as

spiritually joined in the bond of Christian love to all who are taught

of GOD, and belong to the universal Church of CHRIST, however much they

may differ in forms, which they deem non-essentials.

See _Crantz’s History of the Brethren_; _Spangenberg’s Exposition of

Christian Doctrine_; _Ratio Disciplinæ Unit. Fratrum_, by Loretz, &c.

MORMONISTS, or LATTER DAY SAINTS. The Census Report published in 1854,

gives the following account of these enthusiasts. Although, in origin,

the Mormon movement is not English, but American, yet, as the new creed,

by the missionary zeal of its disciples, has extended into England, and

is making some not inconsiderable progress with the poorer classes of

our countrymen, it seems desirable to give, as far as the inadequate

materials permit, some brief description of a sect, the history of whose

opinions, sufferings, and achievements, shows, perhaps, the most

remarkable religious movement that has happened since the days of

Mahomet.

Joseph Smith, the prophet of the new belief, was born in humble life in

1805, at Sharon in the state of Vermont, from whence in 1815 he removed

with his parents to Palmyra, New York. When about 15 years old, being

troubled by convictions of his spiritual danger, and perplexed by the

multitude of mutually hostile sects, he saw, he says, while praying in a

grove, a vision of “two personages,” who informed him that his sins were

pardoned, and that all existing sects were almost equally erroneous.

This vision was repeated three years afterwards, in 1823, when an angel,

he reports, informed him that the American Indians were a remnant of the

Israelites, and that certain records, written by the Jewish prophets and

containing history and prophecy, had, when the Indians fell into

depravity, been buried in the earth at a spot which the angel indicated.

Smith was further told, that _he_ had been selected as the instrument by

which these valuable records should be brought to light; the revelations

they contained being necessary for the restoration of that purity of

creed and worship from which all the modern churches had alike departed.

Accordingly, upon the 22nd of September, 1823, Smith, the story runs,

discovered in the side of a hill, about four miles from Palmyra in

Ontario County, a stone box, just covered by the earth, in which was

deposited the “Record,”—a collection of thin plates of gold, held

together by three golden rings. Part of this golden book was sealed, but

the portion open to inspection was engraven thickly with “Reformed

Egyptian” characters. Together with the book he found two crystal lenses

“set in the two rims of a bow,” apparently resembling an enormous pair

of spectacles; this instrument he said was the Urim and Thummim used by

ancient seers.

The simple inspection of these treasures was the whole extent of Smith’s

achievements on his first discovery of them; he was not permitted by the

angel to remove them until four years afterwards, on the 22nd of

September, 1827. During the interval he received occasional instruction

from his supernatural visitant.

The news of his discovery attracted such attention, and procured him so

much obloquy, that, according to the narrative of his biographers, he

was exposed to personal violence, and was obliged to fly to

Pennsylvania, carrying his golden plates concealed in a barrel of beans.

When thus in some security, he, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, set

to work upon the translation of the unsealed portion, which, when

complete, composed a bulky volume, which he called the “Book of

Mormon”—“Mormon” meaning, he explained, _more good_, from “_mor_,” a

contraction for _more_, and “_mon_,” Egyptian for _good_. “Mormon,” too,

was the name of a supposed prophet living in the fourth or fifth

century, who, after the principal portion of the American Israelites had

fallen in battle, and the whole of them become degenerate, engraved on

plates a summary of their history and prophecies. These plates, his son,

Moroni, in the troublous times which followed, hid for safety in a hill

then called Cumora, about the year A. D. 420.

Mormons defend the authenticity of this recital, by asserting the

improbability that Smith, an illiterate person, could invent it, and,

unaided, write so large and peculiar a volume. To the objection that the

golden plates are not produced, they give Smith’s own reply to the

applications made to him by his disciples for a view—that such an

exhibition of them is prohibited by special revelation. Nevertheless, in

further proof of Smith’s veracity, three “witnesses” were found to

testify that they had actually _seen_ the plates, an angel having shown

them; and a similar testimony was borne by eight other “witnesses,”—four

of those belonging to a family named Whitmer, and three being the two

brothers and the father of Smith. The utmost that Smith did towards

allowing access by indifferent parties to the plates, was to give to one

of his inquiring followers a copy upon paper of a portion of the plates

in the original hieroglyphics, viz. the “Reformed Egyptian.” This was

submitted by the yet unsatisfied disciple to Professor Anthon of New

York, who, however, did not recognise the characters as those of any

ancient language known to him. The Mormon advocates appear to think

these evidences irresistible.—Upon the other hand, it is asserted, by

opponents of the Mormons, that about the years 1809–12, a person of the

name of Solomon Spaulding, who had been a clergyman, conceived and

executed the design of writing a religious tale, the scenes and

narrative of which should be constructed on the theory that the American

Indians were the lost ten tribes of Israel. This work, when finished, he

entitled “_The Manuscript found_;” and the purport of the fiction was,

to trace the progress of the tribes from Jerusalem to America, and then

describe their subsequent adventures in the latter country,—“Mormon” and

his son “Moroni” being prominent characters, and Nephi, Lehi, and the

Lamanites (names frequently occurring in the Book of Mormon) being also

mentioned. The MS. of this production, it is further stated, found its

way into the hands of one Sidney Rigdon, who was intimately connected

with Smith from the commencement of his career.

The “_Book of Mormon_” was succeeded by a “_Book of Doctrine and

Covenants_,” being a collection of the special revelations made to Smith

and his associates upon all points connected with the course and welfare

of the Church. This was continually enlarged as further revelations,

consequent upon the varying fortunes and requirements of the body, were

received. Amongst these was one by which the “Aaronic Priesthood” was

revived—another by which baptism by immersion was commanded—a third for

the institution of “Apostles”—and others for the temporal regulation of

the Church from time to time. In these productions the peculiar

phraseology of the sacred Scriptures was profusely imitated.

It appears that at the end of about three years after Smith’s

announcement of himself as a prophet, about thirty persons were

convinced of the reality of his pretensions, and from this time forward

converts rapidly increased. Smith removed to Kirtland in Ohio, and set

up a mill, a store, and a bank.

It was not without opposition that this progress was effected. As

appears to be usual upon the rise of new religious sects, the Mormons

were accused of holding many outrageous and immoral doctrines, and,

amongst them, that of a community of wives. The popular hostility was

often violently manifested, and the “saints” were subjected to much

ill-treatment. Smith himself, in 1832, was tarred and feathered by a

midnight mob; and, in the following year, the whole of the Mormons in

Missouri (amounting to above a thousand persons) were expelled from

Independence, Jackson County, which had been described by Smith as the

Zion appointed by revelation for the resting-place of the “saints.” They

removed to Clay County, where, in 1837, they were joined by the prophet

himself, whose bank in Kirtland had failed. Meantime, the prejudice

against the Mormons followed them to their new habitation, and, in 1838,

after several sanguinary outbreaks, Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum

were imprisoned, and the whole community of Mormons were expelled from

their possessions in Missouri. They took refuge in the neighbouring

state of Illinois. Here, in 1839, their prophet, who had managed to

escape from prison, joined them. They now numbered 15,000 souls.

In Illinois, they chose the village of Commerce as their residence,

which soon became converted into a considerable town, of which the

“prophet” was appointed mayor. This town they called Nauvoo, or

“Beautiful,” according to the language of the Book of Mormon. A body of

militia, called the Nauvoo Legion, was established—Smith being

“General.” In 1841, a “revelation” ordered the construction of a

splendid temple, towards which object all the Mormons were to contribute

a full tithe of their possessions. It is said that they expended on this

structure nearly a million of dollars.

In Nauvoo, the Mormons seem to have increased and prospered greatly: the

town extended fast; the temple gradually rose; and the prophet was the

absolute head of a comparatively powerful community, which hardly

recognised the ordinary laws of the state. In 1843 he became a candidate

for the presidency, and put forth a statement of his views. In 1844,

however, occurred the final catastrophe of his life. A Nauvoo paper,

having printed certain scandal of him, was, by order of the council of

the town, suppressed, and its office razed; on which, the editors

retired to Carthage, and obtained a warrant against Smith and his

brother. This warrant Smith refused to recognise: the county force

prepared to execute it; and the “saints” prepared their city for

defence. To save the town, however, Smith surrendered on the promise of

protection from the governor. This promise proved of little value; for,

on the 27th of June, 1844, a mob broke into Carthage prison, and Joseph

and Hyrum Smith were shot.

Upon the prophet’s death there were two competitors for the vacant

supremacy—Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young. The former was the earliest

associate of Smith, and professed to be acquainted with “all his

secrets;” but, as the prominent advocate of the “Spiritual Wife”

doctrine, he was looked upon with disfavour as the virtual author of

much of the suspicion and hostility with which the Mormons were

regarded. Brigham Young succeeded therefore to the post of “prophet,”

(which he still retains,) and Rigdon was expelled from the community. An

interval of scarcely interrupted progress followed, during which the

temple was completed; but in 1845 the troubles were renewed: perpetual

conflicts, in which blood was shed, occurred, and the city of Nauvoo

itself was regularly besieged. At length the Mormons, conscious of their

inability alone to cope with their antagonists, and seeing that no

confidence could be reposed upon the law for their protection, undertook

(since nothing less would satisfy their enemies) that they would

altogether quit the State—commencing their departure in the spring of

1846.

This time it was no mere temporary, neighbouring refuge which the

Mormons sought. The elders of the church, aware of the hostility to

which it would be constantly exposed in any portion of the populated

States, resolved, with equal policy and daring, to escape entirely from

the settled territory, and to seek far off, beyond the Rocky Mountains,

some secluded and unoccupied retreat in which they could, secure from

molestation, build their earthly “Zion,” and, by gathering thither from

all quarters of the world the converts to their faith, become a thriving

and a powerful community, too potent to be further interfered with. This

remarkable pilgrimage, involving the removal of some thousands of men,

women, children, cattle, and stores, over thousands of untrodden

miles—across wide unbridged rivers—by the difficult passes of

snow-capped mountains—and through deserts, prairies, and tribes of

predatory Indians—was at once commenced. A party of pioneers set out

from Nauvoo in February, 1846, when it was still winter—the waggons

crossing the Mississippi on the ice. These were to prepare the way for

the main body of the citizens, who, according to stipulation, might

remain in Nauvoo till these preparations were completed. Their departure

was, however, hastened by the fresh hostility of their opponents,

who—concluding from the progress still continued in the decorations of

the temple that the Mormons secretly intended to elude their promise and

return—attacked the town in September, 1846, and expelled the whole of

its remaining population. These then followed and overtook the

pioneering party, which, after dreadful sufferings from cold and heat,

from hunger and disease, had, finding it impossible to reach their

destination till the following year, encamped upon the banks of the

Missouri, on the lands of the Omahas and Pottawatamies. Here they had

sown the land to some extent with grain, the crops of which were to be

reaped by their successors. After a dreary winter, spent in this

location, they began their march towards their final settlement. In

April, 1847, the first detachment of 143, with 70 waggons, crossed the

Rocky Mountains; arriving at the basin of the Great Salt Lake, in the

latter portion of July, in time to sow the land for an autumn crop. The

second party started in the summer with 566 waggons and a great supply

of grain. The others followed in the course of 1848—their passage much

alleviated by the tracks prepared by their predecessors, and the

harvests left for them to gather.

The valley of the Great Salt Lake is a territory of considerable extent,

enclosed on all sides by high rocky mountains. The Lake itself is nearly

300 miles in circumference, with islands rising from its surface to an

elevation of some thousand feet: its shores are covered in some places

with the finest salt, and its water is as buoyant as the waves of the

Dead Sea. Portions of the land are desert; but a vast expanse is

wonderfully fertile, and abounds in all facilities for pasturage and

cultivation. Here the Mormons have now firmly fixed themselves, and

made, since 1848, continual progress. Further settlements have been

established, and several cities founded: that of the Great Salt Lake

itself has a plot of several acres, destined to support a temple whose

magnificence shall far exceed the splendour of the former Nauvoo

edifice. Relying on the inexhaustible resources of the region to sustain

innumerable inhabitants, the principal endeavour of the rulers is to

gather there as many immigrants as possible, professing the same faith.

They calculate that thus, established in an almost inaccessible retreat,

with numbers continually augmenting, they will soon be able to defy

external enmity, and rear upon a lasting basis their ecclesiastical

republic. Missionary agents are despatched to almost every portion of

the world to make fresh converts and facilitate their transit to

America. In England these endeavours have been followed by no slight

success: it is computed that at least as many as 30,000 persons in this

country belong to the community, and nearly 20,000 have already, it is

said, departed for the Great Salt Lake. This settlement itself has now,

by the name of “Utah,” been admitted to the United States’ Confederacy;

but it seems, from a report of the judges sent there by the recent

President, that the authority of the federal government is virtually set

at nought; the laws and their administration being always found

accordant with the pleasure of the Mormon rulers.

A printed “Creed” presents the following summary of their opinions, but

omits some rather material points:—

“We believe in God the eternal Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, and in

the Holy Ghost.

“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for

Adam’s transgressions.

“We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be

saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

“We believe that these ordinances are: 1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus

Christ. 2d, Repentance. 3d, Baptism by immersion for the remission of

sins. 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5th, The

Lord’s supper.

“We believe that men must be called of God by inspiration, and by laying

on of hands by those who are duly commissioned to preach the gospel and

administer in the ordinances thereof.

“We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive

church, viz. apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, &c.

“We believe in the powers and gifts of the everlasting gospel, viz. the

gift of faith, discerning of spirits, prophecy, revelation, visions,

healing, tongues and the interpretation of tongues, wisdom, charity,

brotherly love, &c.

“We believe in the word of God recorded in the Bible. We also believe

the word of God recorded in the Book of Mormon and in all other good

books.

“We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal; and

we believe that he will yet reveal many more great and important things

pertaining to the kingdom of God, and Messiah’s second coming.

“We believe in the literal gathering of Israel, and in the restoration

of the ten tribes; that Zion will be established upon the Western

continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth a thousand

years; and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical

glory.

“We believe in the literal resurrection of the body, and that the dead

in Christ will rise first, and that the rest of the dead live not again

until the thousand years are expired.

“We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the

dictates of our conscience, unmolested, and allow all men the same

privilege, let them worship how or where they may.

“We believe in being subject to kings, queens, presidents, rulers, and

magistrates, in obeying, honouring, and sustaining the law.

“We believe in being honest, true, chaste, temperate, benevolent,

virtuous, and upright, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say

that we follow the admonition of Paul,—we ‘believe all things,’ we ‘hope

all things,’ we have endured very many things, and hope to be able to

‘endure all things.’ Everything virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy, and of

good report we seek after, looking forward to the ‘recompence of

reward.’”

A rather more specific outline of some points of their belief is given

by one of their “apostles.” According to him, the “saints” believe that

all mankind, in consequence of Adam’s sin, are in a state of ruin: from

this, however, they are all delivered by the sacrifice of Christ, and

are made secure of everlasting happiness, unless they commit any

_actual_ sin. Infants, therefore, being irresponsible, will be eternally

redeemed; and such among the people of the earth as have not had the

benefit of revelation will receive a mitigated punishment. The rest, in

order to be saved from endless ruin, must comply with four

conditions:—(1.) they must _believe_ in Christ’s atonement; (2.) they

must _repent_ of their transgressions; (3.) they must receive _baptism_

by immersion for the remission of sins, administered only by one

authorized of Christ; and (4.) they must receive the _laying on of

hands_ for the gift of the Holy Ghost—_this_ ordinance also being, like

that of baptism, only to be administered by duly authorized apostles or

elders. All who comply with these conditions obtain forgiveness of their

sins and are made partakers of the Holy Ghost—enjoying, too, the gifts

of prophecy and healing, visions and revelations, and the power of

working miracles.

Among the prominent opinions, not included in these statements, are

their doctrines of the materiality of the Deity, and of the two-fold

order of the priesthood, viz. the Melchisedekian and the Aaronic. They

are also charged by their opponents with the practice and the sanction

of polygamy; and evidence is not unplentiful of their allowance of

something closely similar; and in their various publications very

peculiar doctrines on the subject of marriage are propounded. Their

standard books, however, specially denounce the crime.

In England and Wales there were, in 1851, reported by the Census

officers as many as 222 places of worship belonging to this body—most of

them however being merely rooms. The number of sittings in these places

(making an allowance for 53, the accommodation in which was not

returned,) was 30,783. The _attendance _on the Census Sunday (making an

estimated addition for 9 chapels from which no intelligence on this

point was received) was: _Morning_, 7,517; _Afternoon_, 11,481;

_Evening_, 16,628. The preachers, it appears, are far from unsuccessful

in their efforts to obtain disciples: the surprising confidence and zeal

with which they promulgate their creed—the prominence they give to the

exciting topics of the speedy coming of the Saviour and his personal

millennial reign—and the attractiveness to many minds of the idea of an

infallible church, relying for its evidences and its guidance upon

revelations made perpetually to its rulers,—these, with other

influences, have combined to give the Mormon movement a position and

importance with the working classes, which, perhaps, should draw to it

much more than it has yet received of the attention of our public

teachers.

MORTAL SIN. (See _Deadly Sin_.)

MORTIFICATION. Any severe penance observed on a religious account. The

mortification of sin in believers is a duty enjoined in the sacred

Scriptures. (Rom viii. 13; Col. iii. 5.) It consists in breaking the

league with sin; declaration of open hostility against it; and strong

resistance to it. (Eph. vi. 10, &c.; Gal. v. 24; Rom. viii. 13.)

MORTMAIN. This is where lands are given to some spiritual person or

corporation and to their successors; and because the lands were never to

revert to the donor, or his heirs, and by that means the services and

other profits due for the same were extinct, therefore it was called a

gift _mortua manu_.

The first statute against mortmain was that of Magna Charta, (9 Hen.

III. c. 36,) which declares, “that if any one shall give lands to a

religious house, the grant shall be void, and the land forfeited to the

lord of the fee.” The next was the 7 Edw. I. stat. ii., commonly called

the statute “De Religiosis,” which restrained people, at the time of

their death or otherwise, from giving or making over any lands or rents

to churches or religious houses, without the king’s leave first

obtained. This is called the statute of mortmain; but being evaded, the

13 of Edw. I. was passed, and afterwards by the 15 Rich. II. c. 5, it

was declared, “that it was within the compass of the statute of Edward

I. to convert any land into a churchyard, though it be done with the

consent or connivance of the ter-tenant, and confirmed by the pope’s

bull.

This last statute extended only to bodies corporate, and, therefore, by

the 23 Hen. VIII. c. 10, it is enacted, “that if any grants of lands or

other hereditaments should be made in trust to the use of any churches,

chapels, churchwardens, guilds, fraternities, &c., to have perpetual

obits, or a continual service of a priest for ever, or for sixty or

eighty years, or to such like uses or intents, all such uses, intents,

and purposes shall be void; they being no corporations, but erected

either of devotion, or else by the common consent of the people; and all

collateral assurances made for defeating this statute shall be void, and

the said statute shall be expounded most beneficially for the

destruction of such uses as aforesaid.”

Though the prohibition by the statute of mortmain in the Magna Charta

was absolute, yet a royal charter of licence (18 Edw. III. stat. iii. c.

3) afforded relaxation of the restraint, and by the 17 Car. II. c. 3,

the following relief was granted:—“Every owner of any impropriations,

tithes, or portion of tithes, in any parish or chapelry, may give and

annex the same, or any part thereof, unto the parsonage or vicarage of

the said parish church or chapel where the same do lie or arise; or

settle the same in trust for the benefit of the said parsonage or

vicarage, or of the curate and curates there successively, where the

parsonage is impropriate and no vicar endowed, without any licence of

mortmain.

“And if the settled maintenance of any parsonage, vicarages, churches,

and chapels united, or of any other parsonage or vicarage with cure,

shall not amount to the full sum of £100 a year clear and above all

charges and reprises, it shall be lawful for the parson, vicar, and

incumbent of the same, and his successors, to take and purchase to him

and his successors lands and tenements, rents, tithes, or other

hereditaments, without any licence of mortmain.” This dispensing power

was carried so high in the reign of King James II., that by the 1 Wm.

III. sess. ii. c. 2, it was enacted, that no dispensation, by “non

obstante,” to any statute shall be allowed. By the 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 37,

and 2 & 3 Anne, c. 11, certain relaxations were again made; but by the 9

Geo. II. c. 36, further restraints were imposed, which render it

impossible for the Church of England to augment poor livings, under the

provisions of 17 Car. II. c. 3, already recited.

By 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49, s. 4, grants of land for sites of schools, not

exceeding five acres, made by owners or tenants in tail are valid,

although the grantor die within twelve months.

MORTUARY, (_Mortuarium_,) in the English ecclesiastical law, is a gift

left by a man at his death to his parish church, in recompence of

personal tithes omitted to be paid in his lifetime; or, it is that

beast, or other cattle, which, after the death of the owner, by the

custom of the place, is due to the parson or vicar, in lieu of tithes or

offerings forgot, or not well and truly paid by him that is dead.

Selden tells us, it was usual anciently to bring the mortuary along with

the corpse, when it came to be buried, and to offer it to the Church as

a satisfaction for the supposed negligence and omission the deceased had

been guilty of in not paying his personal tithes; and from thence it was

called a corpse present.

A mortuary is not properly due to an ecclesiastical incumbent from any

but those of his own parish; but by custom, in some places, they are

paid to the incumbents of other parishes, when corpses are carried

through them. The bishops of Bangor, Landaff, St. David’s, &c. had

formerly mortuaries of priests, abolished by 12 Anne, stat. ii. c. 6.

And it was customary, in the diocese of Chester, for the bishop to have

a mortuary, on the death of every priest dying within the archdeaconry

of Chester, of his best beast, saddle and bridle, and best gown or

cloak, hat, and upper garment under the gown. By 28 Geo. II. c. 6,

mortuaries in the diocese of Chester were abolished, and the rectory of

Waverton attached to the see in lieu thereof. By the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 6,

mortuaries were commuted into money payments, which were regulated as

follows:—“No parson, vicar, curate, parish priest, or other, shall for

any person dying or dead, and being at the time of his death of the

value in moveable goods of ten marks or more, clearly above his debts

paid, and under the sum of £30, take for a mortuary above 3_s._ 4_d._ in

the whole. And for a person dying or dead, being at the time of his

death of the value of £30 or above, clearly above his debts paid, in

moveable goods, and under the value of £40, there shall no more be taken

or demanded for a mortuary, than 6_s._ 8_d._ in the whole. And for any

person dying or dead, having at the time of his death of the value in

moveable goods of £40 or above, to any sum whatsoever it be clearly

above his debts paid, there shall be no more taken, paid, or demanded

for a mortuary, than 10_s._ in the whole. The Welsh bishoprics and the

diocese of Chester were excepted from the operation of this statute, and

therefore subsequent acts were passed with respect to them.

MOTETT, in Church music, a short piece of music highly elaborated, of

which the subject is taken from the psalms or hymns of the Church. It

somewhat resembles our anthems. The derivation is from the Italian

_Mottetto_, a little word or sentence; originally signifying a short

epigram in verse; and afterwards applied as now defined, as the words of

the Motett properly consist of a short sentence from Holy

Scripture.—_Jebb._

MOTHER OF GOD. (See _Mariolatry_, _Virgin Mary_, _Nestorians_.) “The

Virgin Mary,” says Pearson on the Creed, “is frequently styled the

Mother of JESUS in the language of the evangelists, and by Elizabeth,

particularly, the _Mother of her Lord_, as also, by the general consent

of the Church, because he which was born of her was GOD, the _Deipara_:

which, being a compound title, begun in the Greek Church, was resolved

into its parts by the Latins, and so the Virgin was plainly named the

_Mother of God_.”

We admit that the Virgin Mary is the mother of GOD; but we protest

against the conclusion that she is, on that account, to be treated with

peculiar honour, or to be worshipped; for this expression is used not to

exalt her, but to assert unequivocally the Divinity of her SON: He whom

she brought forth was GOD, and therefore she is a bringer forth or

mother of GOD.

The term was first brought prominently forward at the Council of

Ephesus, (A. D. 431,) the third of those four general councils, the

decisions of which are authoritative in the Church of England; and it

was adopted as a formula against the Nestorians. The Nestorian

controversy originated thus. In the year 428, Nestorius was bishop of

Constantinople, and he had brought with him from Antioch, where he had

before resided, a priest named Anastasius, his chaplain and friend; this

person, preaching one day in the church of Constantinople, said, “Let no

one call Mary mother of GOD, for she was a woman, and it is impossible

that GOD should be born of a human creature.” These words gave great

offence to many both of the clergy and laity; for they had always been

taught, says the historian Socrates, to acknowledge JESUS CHRIST as GOD,

and not to sever him in any way from the Divinity. Nestorius, however,

declared his assent to what Anastasius had said, and became, from his

high position in the Church, the heresiarch.

When the heresy had spread into Egypt, it was refuted by St. Cyril,

bishop of Alexandria, in a pastoral letter, which he published for the

direction of his people. “I wonder,” he says, “how a question can be

raised, as to whether the Holy Virgin should be called mother of GOD;

for if our LORD JESUS CHRIST is GOD, how is not the Holy Virgin, his

mother, the mother of GOD? This is the faith we have been taught by the

apostles.” He next proves that he who was born of the Virgin Mary is GOD

in his own nature, since the Nicene Creed says that the only begotten

SON of GOD, of the same substance with the FATHER, himself came down

from heaven and was incarnate; and then he proceeds, “You will say,

perhaps, is the Virgin, then, mother of the Divinity? We answer, It is

certain that the WORD is eternal, and of the substance of the FATHER.

Now, in the order of nature, mothers, who have no part in the creation

of the soul, are still called mothers of the whole man, and not of the

body only; for surely it would be a hypercritical refinement to say,

Elizabeth is mother of the body of John, and not of his soul. In the

same way, therefore, we express ourselves in regard to the birth of

EMMANUEL, since the WORD, having taken flesh upon him, is called SON of

Man.” In a letter to Nestorius himself he enters into a fuller

explanation: “We must admit in the same CHRIST two generations: first,

the eternal, by which he proceeds from his FATHER; second, the temporal,

by which he is born of his mother. When we say that he suffered and rose

again, we do not say that GOD the WORD suffered in his own nature, for

the Divinity is impassible; but because the body which was appropriated

to him suffered, so also we say that he suffered himself. So too we say

he died. The Divine WORD is in his own nature immortal. He is life

itself; but because his own true body suffered death, we say that he

himself died for us. In the same way, when his flesh is raised from the

dead, we attribute resurrection to him. We do not say that we adore the

man along with the WORD, lest the phrase ‘along with’ should suggest the

idea of non-identity; but we adore him as one and the same person,

because the body assumed by the WORD is in no degree external or

separated from the WORD.”—_Conc. Eph._ part i. v. 8. “It is in this

sense,” he says afterwards, “that the Fathers have ventured to call the

Holy Virgin mother of GOD, not that the nature of the WORD, or his

Divinity, did receive beginning of his existence from the Holy Virgin,

but because in her was formed and animated a reasonable soul and a

sacred body, to which the WORD united himself in hypostasis, which is

the reason of its being said, ‘he was born according to the flesh.’”

It was jealousy for the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and anxiety to maintain his

honour, and to assert his Divinity, which influenced the Fathers at the

Council of Ephesus, and not any special regard to the creature through

whose instrumentality he was brought into the world. And the decisions

of that council, because they can be proved to be scriptural, the Church

of England accepts. The council vindicated this title, not because it

was a high title for Mary, but because to deny it is to deny that he is

GOD whom she brought forth. The heresy of Nestorius related to the

incarnation or junction of the two natures in CHRIST, which he affirmed

not to be a _union_, but merely a _connexion_; whereas the object of the

Council of Ephesus was to assert “the real and inseparable union of the

two natures in CHRIST, and to show that the human nature, which CHRIST

took of the Holy Virgin, never subsisted separately from the Divine

person of the SON of GOD.”

To the use of the term, however, though we contend for its propriety,

divines of the Church of England are not partial, because, by the

subtilty of the Romish controversialists, it has been so used, or rather

misused, as to make it seem to confer peculiar honour and privileges

upon the Virgin Mary. The primitive Christians, like ourselves, were

contented with speaking of the Virgin as “the mother of my LORD;” and

this phrase sufficed until, as we have seen, heretics arose who

understood the word LORD in an inferior sense, and then it became

necessary to assert that GOD and LORD, as applied to our blessed

Saviour, are synonymous terms. And sound theologians will still

occasionally use the term Mother of GOD, lest Nestorianism should be

held unconsciously by persons who wish to be orthodox, and people forget

the great truth expressed by St. Paul, that “GOD purchased the Church

with his own blood;” and that CHRIST is “over all, GOD blessed for

ever.”

The Council of Ephesus caused the Nicene Creed, and several passages out

of St. Cyprian, St. Basil, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and many

others, to be read in council. And from them they gathered, and

therefore pronounced, that according to the Scriptures, as interpreted

by the catholic Church, Christ, though he have two natures, yet he is

but one person, and by consequence that the Virgin Mary might properly

be called Θεοτόκος, because the same person who was born of her is truly

GOD as well as man: which being once determined by an universal council

to be the true sense and meaning of the Scriptures in this point, hath

been acknowledged by the universal Church ever since, till this

time.—_Bishop Beveridge._

MOULDING. An ornamental form given to angles and edges of masonry or

wood-work, and carried uniformly along a considerable extent. The use of

mouldings must commence with the earliest attempts at ornament in

masonry or carpentry. The Saxon mouldings, so far as we can collect from

existing specimens, were extremely rude and simple; but with the Norman

mouldings the case is precisely the reverse, so far, at least, as

simplicity is concerned: for though the mouldings themselves may be

resolved into a very few forms and combinations, they were often either

treated as if themselves broken and mitred together at various angles,

as in the case of the chevron and embattled mouldings; or they were

themselves decorated with forms not of their own nature, as the

medallion, beak head, and other like mouldings, which are however,

strictly speaking, rather decorations of mouldings, than themselves

mouldings. It would far exceed our limits to describe the several

mouldings of the succeeding styles. We must be content with saying, in

general, that in the Early English they reached their greatest

complexity and depth, and that they gradually became less numerous, and

shallower, to the Perpendicular; the happy mean being reached in this,

as in almost everything else, in the Geometrical. The particular

mouldings, which may be said to be distinctive of a style, are chiefly

the ogee, in several of its forms, of the Decorated; the scroll of the

Decorated, with the later Geometric; the wide and shallow casement or

hollow of the Perpendicular. The hollows, in the Early English, usually

separate single mouldings, in the Decorated groups of mouldings. The

earlier mouldings, as Norman and Early English, generally occupy the

planes of the wall and of the soffit; the later, especially

Perpendicular, the chamfer plane only. To be at all appreciated, the

subject of mouldings must be studied in the “Oxford Glossary,” or in

Paley’s “Manual of Gothic Mouldings;” and to be mastered, it must be

pursued, pencil in hand, in our ancient ecclesiastical edifices.

MOVEABLE and IMMOVEABLE FEASTS. The feasts kept in the Christian Church

are called moveable and immoveable, according as they fall always on the

same day in the calendar in each year,—as the saints’ days; or depend on

other circumstances,—as Easter, and the feasts calculated from Easter.

The Book of Common Prayer contains several tables for calculating

Easter, and the following rules to know when the moveable feasts and

holy-days begin:

“Easter Day, on which the rest depend, is always the first Sunday after

the full moon which happens upon, or next after, the twenty-first day of

March; and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter Day is the

Sunday after.

“Advent Sunday is always the nearest Sunday to the feast of St. Andrew,

whether before or after.

Septuagesima │ Sunday is │Nine │Weeks before

│ │ │Easter.

Sexagesima │ „ │Eight │ „

Quinquagesima │ „ │Seven │ „

Quadragesima │ „ │Six │ „

│ │ │

Rogation Sunday │ is │Five Weeks │after Easter.”

Ascension Day │ „ │Forty Days │ „

Whit Sunday │ „ │Seven Weeks │ „

Trinity Sunday │ „ │Eight Weeks │ „

MOYER’S LECTURE. A lecture established by Lady Moyer. The following is

an extract from the will of the Lady Moyer, or, as she is therein

styled, “Dame Rebecca Moyer, late of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn,

in the county of Middlesex, widow.”

“My now dwelling-house in Bedford Row, or Jockey Field, I give to my

dear child Eliza Moyer, that out of it may be paid twenty guineas a year

to an able minister of GOD’S word, to preach eight sermons every year on

the Trinity and Divinity of our ever-blessed SAVIOUR, beginning with the

first Thursday in November, and to the first Thursday in the seven

sequel months, in St. Paul’s, if permitted there, or, if not, elsewhere,

according to the discretion of my executrix, who will not think it any

encumbrance to her house. I am sure it will bring a blessing on it, if

that work be well and carefully carried on, which in this profligate age

is so neglected. If my said daughter should leave no children alive at

her death, or they should die before they come to age, then I give my

said house to my niece, Lydia Moyer, now wife to Peter Hartop, Esq., and

to her heirs after her, she always providing for that sermon, as I have

begun, twenty guineas every year.”

There is a list of the preachers of this lecture at the end of Mr. John

Berriman’s “Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16,” (which is the

substance of the lectures he preached,) down to the year 1740–1: and in

a copy of that book in Sion College library, there is a continuation of

the list in MS., by Mr. John Berriman, to the year 1748. In the year

1757, they were preached by Mr. William Clements, librarian of Sion

College, but he did not publish them till 1797. In the year 1764, or

thereabouts, the preacher was Benjamin Dawson, LL.D., who printed them

under the title of “An Illustration of several Texts of Scripture,

particularly wherein the Logos occurs, 1765.” Dr. Thomas Morell, author

of the “_Thesaurus Græcæ, Poeseos_,” is supposed to have been the last.

Mr. Watts, librarian of Sion College, (to whom the reader is indebted

for the information here given,) heard him preach one of them in

January, 1773. One of these lectures Dr. Morell published, _without his

name_, in April, 1774. It was written against Lindsey, and entitled “The

Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity justified.” In the “Gentleman’s

Magazine for 1804,” p. 187, mention is made of a Mrs. Moyer, who “died

at Low Layton, February, 1804, the widow of Benjamin Moyer, Esq., son of

Lawrence Moyer, merchant, who succeeded as heir of his uncle, Sir Samuel

Moyer, a rich Turkey merchant, sheriff of Essex in 1698; Bart., 1701;

died, 1716. His widow Rebecca, sister of Sir William Jolliffe, Knt.,

founded the lecture for a limited number of years.” This does not,

however, appear to have been the case, no limitations being mentioned in

Lady Moyer’s will. But since there is no compulsory obligation in the

will to perpetuate the lecture, the probability is that, in course of

time, (perhaps immediately after Dr. Morell’s turn expired,) the

property fell into other hands, and the lecture was no longer continued.

MOZARABIC LITURGY. The ancient liturgy of Spain; the name Mozarabic

signifying those Christians who were mixed with, or lived in the midst

of, Arabs, or Moors. Mr. Palmer considers that this liturgy was derived

at a very early age from that of Gaul, which it much resembles. It was

abolished in 1060 in Arragon, but was not for some time afterwards

relinquished in Navarre, Castile, and Leon. Cardinal Ximenes founded a

college and chapel in Toledo for the celebration of this rite: the only

place perhaps in Spain where it is preserved.—_Palmer’s Origin. Liturg._

MOZECTA, MUZECTA, MOZZETTO. An ecclesiastical vestment, like the

bishop’s colobrium or tunicle, worn by the canons in certain cathedrals

of Sicily.—_Peiri Sicilia Sacra._

MULLION, more correctly _Monial_. The upright bars dividing a traceried

window into lights.

MUSIC, as connected with the Church service, is sometimes used in a

peculiar and technical sense, to signify the accompaniment of a band of

instrumental music, as violins and wind instruments, not the organ only.

A service _in music_ abroad is understood in this sense. These kind of

accompaniments are foreign to the genuine spirit of the Church of

England, which, as a general rule, recognises the organ only. Charles

II. introduced the foreign style of music into his chapel, which,

however, was but short-lived. Evelyn in his Memoirs, (Dec. 22, 1662,)

speaking of the service at the Chapel Royal when he was present, says,

“Instead of the ancient, grave, and solemn wind music accompanying the

organ, was introduced a concert of 24 violins between every pause, after

the French fantastical light way, better suiting a tavern or a

play-house than a church.” The only stated musical service in the Church

was that performed annually a few years since at the feast of the sons

of the clergy at St. Paul’s. The instrumental accompaniments are now

laid aside. At what are called musical festivals the service is so

accompanied.

MUSIC TABLE. A sort of Lectern, with three sides, round which the choir

were placed, in the middle of Bishop Andrewes’s chapel; as appears by

the plan given in _Canterbury’s Doom_, 1646.

MYNCHERY. A nunnery. A corruption of ministere, or minster.

MYSTERY. (From μύειν τὸ στόμα, _to shut the mouth_; hence μυστήριον,

_mystery_.) Something secret, hidden from human comprehension, or

revealed only in part. The term is applied both to doctrines and facts.

By the usage of the Church it also denotes that inscrutable union in the

sacrament of the inward and spiritual grace with the outward and visible

sign. Hence in the early Church the sacraments were denominated

“mysteries,” and the term derived a still greater force, from the

secrecy which was observed in the administration of those ordinances.

More especially, however, was the holy communion thus designated, as we

learn from the ancient Fathers, who speak repeatedly of the “sacred” and

“tremendous mysteries,” in allusion to this sacrament. With this

application, the term appears in our own Communion Office, where CHRIST

is said to have “instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of

his love, and for a continual remembrance of his death.” We are also

exhorted so to prepare ourselves, that we may be “meet partakers of

those holy mysteries;” and after their reception, thanks are rendered to

GOD, that he has vouchsafed to “feed us who have duly received these

holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious body and

blood of his SON, our SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST.”

MYSTERIES. (See _Moralities_.)

MYSTIC. Sacredly obscure.

MYSTIC RECITATION. Several parts of the Greek liturgy are ordered to be

said μυστικῶς, that is, in a low voice, or whisper, like the _secreto_

of the Roman offices.—_Jebb._

MYSTICAL. Having a hidden, allegorical, or secret meaning. In the

baptismal offices we read, “Sanctify this water to the mystical washing

away of sin:” from which it would be absurd to infer that the mere

physical application of water can remove sin; and yet, on the other

hand, the fact that the remission of sin is associated with baptism,

rests on Scriptural authority. There is, therefore, a secret operation

of GOD’S grace in cleansing the soul linked to the sacramental

application of water to the body; and the concurrence or co-existence of

these the Church regards as a “mystical washing away of sin.”

Again: in the Communion Office, the faithful recipients are said to be

“very [true] members incorporate of the mystical body of CHRIST.” Now,

_how_ the Church can constitute “the body of CHRIST,” will appear to any

one an inscrutable _mystery_, if he will but divest himself of the

familiarity of the terms. As to the fact, it is indisputable; but the

manner is beyond our full comprehension, partaking in some measure of

the nature of allegory, and being strictly _mystical_. It is worth while

to add, that the Church does not recognise the notion of an invisible

Church, as constituting this “mystical body,” composed of those only who

shall be finally saved; for she goes on to pray for the assistance of

GOD’S grace, “that we _may continue_ in that holy fellowship,” &c., a

petition somewhat irrelevant if such an hypothesis be adopted.

MYSTICS. A party which arose towards the close of the third century,

distinguished by their professing pure, sublime, and perfect devotion.

They excuse their fanatical ecstasies by alleging the passage of St.

Paul, “The SPIRIT prays in us with sighs and groans which cannot be

uttered.” They contend that, if the SPIRIT prays within us, we must

resign ourselves to its motions, and be guided and swayed through its

impulse by remaining in a state of mere inaction. The principles

proceeded from the known doctrine of the Platonic school, which was also

adopted by Origen and his disciples, that the Divine nature was diffused

through all human souls; or that the faculty of reason, from which

proceed the health and vigour of the mind, was an emanation from GOD

into the human soul, and comprehended in it the principles and elements

of all truth, human and divine. They denied that men could, by labour or

study, excite this celestial flame in their breasts; and therefore they

disapproved highly of the attempts of those who, by definitions,

abstract theorems, and profound speculations, endeavoured to form

distinct notions of truth, and to discover its hidden nature. On the

contrary, they maintained that silence, tranquillity, repose, and

solitude, accompanied with such acts as might tend to extenuate and

exhaust the body, were the means by which the hidden and internal word

was excited to produce its latent virtues, and to instruct them in the

knowledge of Divine things. For thus they reasoned: Those who behold

with a noble contempt all human affairs; who turn away their eyes from

terrestrial vanities, and shut all the avenues of the outward senses

against the contagious influences of a material world, must necessarily

return to GOD when the spirit is thus disengaged from the impediments

that prevented that happy union; and in this blessed frame they not only

enjoy inexpressible raptures from their communion with the Supreme

Being, but are also invested with the inestimable privilege of

contemplating truth undisguised and uncorrupted in its native purity,

while others behold it in a vitiated and delusive form.

The number of the Mystics increased in the fourth century, under the

influence of the Grecian fanatic, who gave himself out for Dionysius the

Areopagite, disciple of St. Paul, and probably lived about this period;

and by pretending to higher degrees of perfection than other Christians,

and practising greater austerity, their cause gained ground, especially

in the Eastern provinces, in the fifth century. A copy of the pretended

works of Dionysius was sent by Balbus to Louis the Meek, in the year

824, which kindled the holy flame of mysticism in the Western provinces,

and filled the Latins with the most enthusiastic admiration of this new

religion. In the twelfth century, these Mystics took the lead in their

method of expounding the Scriptures. In the thirteenth century they were

the most formidable antagonists of the Schoolmen; and, towards the close

of the fourteenth, many of them resided and propagated their tenets in

almost every part of Europe.

Among the Mystics of that time we may notice the Dominican John Tauler,

of Strasburg, A. D. 1361; Henry Suso of Ulm, A. D. 1365; and especially

John Ruysbroock, called Doctor Ecstaticus, A. D. 1381, who of all the

Mystics was the most dreamy and enthusiastic. Among Protestants there

have been and are many Mystics, but they have not formed a

sect.—_Mosheim._ _Gieseler._

NAG’S HEAD FABLE. (See _Consecration of Bishops_.)

NAHUM, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Nahum is

the seventh of the twelve lesser prophets; a native of Elkoshai, a

little village of Galilee, the ruins of which were still to be seen in

the time of St. Jerome. The particular circumstances of this prophet’s

life are altogether unknown.

Authors are divided as to the time when Nahum prophesied, some fixing it

to the reign of Ahaz, others to that of Manasseh, and others to the

times of the captivity. St. Jerome places it in the reign of Hezekiah,

after the war of Sennacherib in Egypt, which the prophet speaks of as a

thing passed.

The subject of Nahum’s prophecy is the destruction of Nineveh, which he

describes in the most lively and pathetic manner; and this prophecy was

verified in the siege of that city by Astyages in the year of the world

3378, before Christ 622.

NAME. (See _Christian Name_.) The Christian name is given us in baptism.

All things being prepared for the baptism of the child, the minister is

now to “take it into his hands,” and to ask the godfathers and

godmothers to “name” it. For the “Christian name” being given as a badge

that we belong to CHRIST, we cannot more properly take it upon us, than

when we are enlisted under his banner. We bring one name into the world

with us, which we derive from our parents, and which serves to remind us

of our original guilt, and that we are born in sin: but this new name is

given us at our baptism, to remind us of our new birth, when, being

washed in the laver of regeneration, we are thereby cleansed from our

natural impurities, and become in a manner new creatures, and solemnly

dedicate ourselves to GOD. So that the naming of children at this time

hath been thought by many to import something more than ordinary, and to

carry with it a mysterious signification. We find something like it even

among the heathens; for the Romans had a custom of naming their children

on the day of their lustration, (that is, when they were cleansed and

washed from their natural pollution,) which was therefore called “Dies

Nominalis.” And the Greeks also, when they carried their infants, a

little after their birth, about the fire, (which was their ceremony of

dedicating or consecrating them to their gods,) were used at the same

time to give them their names.

And that the Jews named their children at the time of circumcision, the

Holy Scriptures, (Gen. xxi. 3, 4; Luke i. 59, 60; ii. 21,) as well as

their own writers, expressly tell us. And though the rite itself of

circumcision was changed into that of baptism by our SAVIOUR, yet he

made no alteration as to the time and custom of giving the name, but

left that to continue under the new, as he had found it under the old

dispensation. Accordingly we find this time assigned and used to this

purpose ever since; the Christians continuing from the earliest ages to

name their children at the time of baptism.—_Wheatly._

NANTES, EDICT OF. An edict of toleration, promulgated by Henry IV. of

France in 1598, which restored the Protestants to all the favours which

had been granted them in former reigns, and gave them the liberty of

serving GOD according to their conscience, and a full participation in

all civil rights and privileges. This edict was, at the instigation of

the Jesuits, revoked by Louis XIV. in the year 1685.

NARTHEX. (_Gr._ and _Lat._) This name is given by ancient writers to a

part of the fabric of the Christian church. There was the exterior or

outward, and the interior or inward, _Narthex_.

The exterior narthex, which we may call the ante-temple, consisted of

the whole circumference of the outward courts, including the vestibulum

or porch, and the atrium or area before the church.

The interior narthex, or ante-temple within the church, (the only part

properly so called,) was the first section or division of the fabric,

after entering into the church, and was peculiarly allotted to the monks

and women, and used for the offices of rogations, supplications, and

night watches. Here likewise they placed the dead corpses, whilst the

funeral rites were performing. This lower part of the church was the

place of the _Energumens_ and the _Audientes_; and hither Jews,

heathens, heretics, and schismatics were sometimes allowed to come, in

hopes of their conversion by hearing the Scriptures read and sermons

preached.

Dr. Beveridge and others seem to place here the font or baptistery, as

in our modern churches. But it is certain that, for many ages, the

baptistery was a distinct place from the body of the church, and

reckoned among the _Exedræ_, or buildings adjoining to the church.

This part of the church was called _Narthex_, because being long, but

narrow, and running across the front of the church, it was supposed to

resemble a _ferula_, that is, a rod or staff; for any oblong figure was

by the Greeks called νάρθηξ, _Narthex_.

NATIONAL COVENANT. (See _Confessions of Faith_.)

NAVE. The central passage of the church, extending from the west end to

the transept or choir. The derivation of this word has been a matter of

dispute. Some very plausibly derive it from νάος, others from _navis_, a

ship, since the nave resembles the hull of a ship turned upside down;

and refer both this term and νάος also to the ancient Phœnicians, whose

original temples were said to be their vessels thus reversed. At all

events it is remarkable that both the old French _nef_, the Italian and

Spanish _nave_, and the Latin _navis_, all signify a ship as well as the

nave of a church. (See _Churches_ and _Cathedral_.)

NAVICULA; _ship_, or _ark_. A vessel formed “like the keel of a boat,”

out of which the frankincense was poured in Bishop Andrewes’ chapel, and

Queen Elizabeth’s chapel. _Canterbury’s Doom_, 1646. See _Hiereugia

Anglicana_, pp. 4, 5, and 9.

NAZARENES. Christian heretics, so called. This name was originally given

to all Christians in general, because JESUS CHRIST was of the city of

Nazareth. But afterwards it was restrained to a sect of heretics, who

affected to assume it rather than that of Christians. Their religion was

a strange jumble of Judaism and Christianity: for they were Jews by

birth, were circumcised, kept the sabbath, and other observances of the

Mosaical law; and at the same time received the New Testament as well as

the Old, acknowledged JESUS CHRIST to be the MESSIAH, and practised the

Christian baptism. Theodoret indeed pretends they honoured JESUS CHRIST

only as a just and good man; and he places the beginning of their heresy

about the time of Domitian. St. Augustine makes them the successors of

those whose obstinacy in the like opinions was condemned by the

apostolical Council of Jerusalem.

The Nazarenes (as well as the Ebionites) were descended from those

Christians, who left Jerusalem a little before the siege, and retired to

the country about Jordan, called Perea; whence they are sometimes called

Peratics. There were some of them remaining in the time of St.

Augustine. They dwelt about Pella in Decapolis, near the river Jordan,

and at Berea, a city of Lower Syria. They perfectly understood the

Hebrew tongue, in which they read the books of the Old Testament.

These heretics, keeping the mean between the Jews and the Christians,

pretended to be friends alike to both: nevertheless, the Christians

treated them as abominable heretics, and the Jews detested them more

than the other Christians, because they acknowledged JESUS CHRIST to be

the MESSIAH. Epiphanius says, they cursed and anathematized them three

times a day in their synagogues.—_Broughton._

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

was born at Babylon during the captivity, and succeeded Ezra in the

government of Judah and Jerusalem; whither he came with a commission

from Artaxerxes Longimanus, authorizing him to repair and fortify the

city in the same manner as it was before its destruction by the

Babylonians.

Nehemiah was a Jew, and was promoted to the office of cup-bearer to the

Persian king; and the opportunities he had of being daily in the king’s

presence, together with the favour of Esther the queen, procured him the

privileges he obtained for building the city, and the settlement of his

country. When he came to Jerusalem, he finished the rebuilding of the

walls in fifty-two days, and dedicated the gates of the city with great

solemnity. Then he reformed some abuses, which had crept in among his

countrymen, particularly the extortion of the usurers, by which the poor

were so oppressed, as to be forced to sell their lands and children to

support themselves and their families. Then he returned to Persia, and

came back again with a new commission, by virtue of which he regulated

everything relating both to the state and religion of the Jews. The

history of these transactions is the subject matter of this Book of

Nehemiah.

Nehemiah died at Jerusalem, having governed the people of Judah for

about thirty years.

NEOLOGIANS. German Rationalists are so designated; from νέος, _new_, and

λόγος, _doctrine_. They are distinguished from mere deists and

pantheists, by admitting the principal facts of the Bible, though they

attempt to explain away what is miraculous, while they treat the

Scriptures with no more of reverence than they would show to any other

ancient book, and regard our LORD himself as they would regard any good

and wise philosopher.

NESTORIANS. (See _Mother of God_.) The followers of Nestorius, bishop of

Constantinople, who lived in the fifth century. They believed that in

CHRIST there were not only two natures, but two persons; of which the

one was _Divine_, even the ETERNAL WORD, and the other, which was

_human_, was the man JESUS; that these two persons had only one

_aspect_; that the union between the SON of GOD and the SON of man was

formed in the moment of the Virgin’s conception, and was never to be

dissolved; that it was not, however, an union of nature or of person,

but only of will and affection; that CHRIST was therefore to be

carefully distinguished from GOD, who dwelt in him as in his temple; and

that Mary was to be called the mother of CHRIST, and not the mother of

GOD.

This heresy was condemned by the fourth general council, that of

Ephesus, A. D. 431; in which all are anathematized who refuse to call

the Virgin Mary the mother of GOD. For a full account of this people,

see Mr. Badger’s _Nestorians and their Rituals_.

NEWEL. The central column round which the steps of a winding stair are

disposed. They are sometimes designed with considerable taste, and

carefully executed.

NICENE CREED; sometimes called the _Constantinopolitan Creed_. This

creed was chiefly composed by the orthodox fathers of the first general

Council of Nice, A. D. 325, to define the Christian faith, in opposition

to the heresy of Arius. As sanctioned by this assembly it ended with “I

believe in the HOLY GHOST.” The remainder was added by the second

general council, held at Constantinople, A. D. 381, in which the heresy

of Macedonius, with regard to the Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT, was

condemned. In the fifth century, the Western churches added to this

creed the words _filioque_, in conformity with the doctrine, that the

HOLY SPIRIT proceeds from the SON, as well as from the FATHER.

The Church for three hundred years had been content to profess in her

creed, that CHRIST was the LORD; comprehending, under this title, the

highest appellations given to him in Scripture, without stating

minutely, or scrutinizing too narrowly, a doctrine proposed rather to us

as an object of faith than of understanding. Happy had it been for the

Christian world, if this moderation of the Church had been suffered to

continue; but Arius, a discontented priest of Alexandria in Egypt,

either having conceived a different opinion, or wishing to bring himself

into notice by the assertion of a novelty, took upon him to maintain

that CHRIST was not a Divine person, in the highest sense, but a

creature, superior indeed to human nature, but not a partaker of the

supreme GODHEAD.

The publishing of this opinion raised a violent ferment and schism in

the Church. Constantine the Roman emperor summoned a council at Nice, in

Bithynia, to settle this dispute; and there, in the year 325, Arius’s

doctrine was condemned in an assembly of 300 bishops, and that creed

framed, which from the name of the city was called the Nicene Creed. And

here it is necessary to observe, that the meaning of the three creeds of

our Church, and all creeds that can be composed on gospel principles, is

nothing more than a declaration of the sense in which we accept the

profession made in our baptism. By baptism we are admitted into the

Church of CHRIST; by the command of CHRIST we are baptized “in the name

of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.” This is the

condition, by which alone we can partake of the Christian covenant; this

is the mark by which alone we are distinguished from the professors of

every other religion upon earth.

When we repeat a creed, therefore, we do no more than declare our

repeated assent to the conditions of the baptismal covenant; and it

would be sufficient to do this in the very words that CHRIST enjoins, “I

believe in the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST,” if explanations had

not been demanded, to show what we mean by this declaration. Creeds then

do not, properly speaking, contain articles of faith, but an explanation

of the sense in which we understand the primary position of our

religion. And this view of the matter will show us the reason, why no

creed is prescribed in Scripture; why all creeds ever have been, and

ever must be, the composition of men.—_Dean Vincent._

The three creeds, which are the three barriers of the faith of our

Church, extracted from the Holy Scripture in the purer ages of

Christianity, though variously expressed, are yet the same in substance;

agreeable to each other; and all agreeable to the word of GOD, and

approved all along by the Catholic Church. In these forms she calls upon

her members to declare their belief to be consonant to that of the

Church universal. The Apostles’ Creed, as the plainest and shortest

form, is appointed for common and daily use. The Athanasian, for

festivals which relate more immediately to our SAVIOUR; or which are

placed at such convenient distances from each other, as that none may be

wholly ignorant of the mysteries therein contained. And the Nicene Creed

is to be repeated whenever the eucharist is administered according to

the institution of our LORD, whose eternal generation, GODHEAD,

incarnation, sufferings, and exaltation, are therein summarily contained

and acknowledged.—_Archdeacon Yardley._

It is called “the Nicene Creed,” because it was for the most part framed

at the great Council of Nice. But because the great Council of

Constantinople added the latter part, and brought it to the frame which

we now use, therefore it is called also “the Constantinopolitan Creed.”

This creed began to be used in churches at the Communion Service

immediately after the Gospel, in the year of our LORD 339. [The

introduction of it in this place is, however, more commonly referred to

Peter the Fuller, bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 471.] Afterwards it was

established in the churches of Spain and France, after the custom of the

Eastern Church, by the Council of Toledo, and continued down to our

times. The reason why this creed follows immediately after the Epistle

and Gospel, is the same that was given for the Apostles’ Creed following

next after the lessons at morning and evening prayer. To which the canon

of Toledo hath added another reason for saying it here, before the

people draw near to the holy communion; namely, that the breasts of

those who approach to those dreadful mysteries, may be purified by a

true and right faith.—_Bp. Sparrow._

The creed is a summary of the doctrine of the gospel, and here is placed

next to it, because it is grounded upon it. In the gospel we “believe

with our heart unto righteousness;” in the creed we “confess with our

mouth unto salvation” (Rom. x. 10); for all the people ought to repeat

the creed after the minister. It doth more largely condemn all heresies

than the Apostles’ Creed: wherefore it is fitly enjoined to be recited

by all before the sacrament, to show that all the communicants are free

from heresy, and in the strictest league of union with the Catholic

Church; as also to prepare themselves for worthy receiving, by

exercising that faith, of which they have so much use at the LORD’S

table, as the Council of Toledo ordained in the year 600 [589]. So that

every one must openly profess and firmly embrace all these articles,

before he can be fit to receive; yea, and while he repeats them with his

lips, he must resolve to show forth in his life, that he doth sincerely

believe them, by strictly living according to them.—_Dean Comber._

As in the Morning Prayer, so in the Communion Service, for the same

reason, after reading the Scripture, we recite the creed: only then we

have that of the ancient Latin Church; here that of the ancient

Greek.—_Abp. Secker._

Besides the general reasons for repeating the creed, the rehearsal of

our faith before the receiving of the holy communion is founded on these

two special grounds:—1. It is meet that all should first profess the

same faith, who partake of the same mysteries; for surely, if “no

stranger, nor uncircumcised person,” could eat of the passover, that

typical sacrament, (Exod. xii. 43, 48,) much more no stranger to the

Christian faith, nor unbeliever, should partake of the real sacrament of

the LORD’S supper. 2. As the acknowledgment of the articles of our

Christian faith is part of the vow made at our baptism, so ought the

same acknowledgment to be repeated at the LORD’S supper, wherein we

renew that vow.—_Dr. Bisse._

Add to this, that every solemn confession of our faith must be looked

upon as giving glory and honour to GOD, in recognising his essence and

attributes, and the blessings which flow from those sources on mankind:

and hence it, in a peculiar manner, befits this holy service of thanks

and praise. In this we imitate the most ancient liturgies of the Church;

which, when this holy sacrament was celebrated, had an eucharistical

form, wherein GOD’S power and goodness were acknowledged in the

creation, preservation, and redemption of the world. Thus we, though in

a shorter form of undoubted authority, confess to the holy and undivided

TRINITY, and distinctly own the Divinity of each person. We commemorate

the creation of the world by “GOD the FATHER Almighty.” We acknowledge

JESUS CHRIST to be our “LORD;” to have been “begotten” from all

eternity, to be “of one substance with the FATHER,” and with him Creator

of all things: that “for our salvation he came down from heaven, was

made man, suffered, and died” for us. We commemorate his resurrection,

ascension, and sitting at GOD’S right hand: express our expectation of

his second coming; and declare that “his kingdom shall have no end.” We

confess to GOD, that he hath inspired the prophets; that he hath built a

Church on the foundation of the apostles; that he hath appointed baptism

for the remission of sins; and given us leave to “look for the

resurrection of the dead” and an happy eternity.

What more glorious hymn than this can we sing to the honour of GOD? Is

it possible to mention anything else that can so much redound to his

glory? May not this our service be well styled the eucharist, when we

thus give praise and glory to Almighty GOD for the wonderful

manifestation of his attributes, and the inestimable blessings he hath

bestowed upon us? Let not any one therefore think, that repeating the

creed is barely a declaration of his faith to the rest of the

congregation: for, besides that, it is a most solemn act of worship, in

which we honour and magnify GOD, both for what he is in himself, and for

what he hath done for us. And let us all, sensible of this, repeat it

with reverential voice and gesture; and lift up our hearts with faith,

thankfulness, and humble devotion, whenever we say, “I believe,”

&c.—_Archdeacon Yardley._

The Nicene Creed is properly sung in all choirs. Bishop Beveridge says,

“We stand at the creeds; for they being confessions of our faith in GOD,

as such they come under the proper notion of hymns or songs of praise to

him.” The rubric sanctions, that is, enjoins in choirs, the custom: and

such has been the usage of most choirs since the Reformation; an usage

kept up throughout the Western Church, according to Mr. Palmer, since

the year 1012. It is not adapted to chanting, like the Psalms. In our

Prayer Book it is divided, like the Apostles’ Creed and the Gloria in

excelsis, into three paragraphs, of which the central one has special

reference to GOD the SON.—_Jebb._

NICOLAITANS. Heretics who arose in the Christian Church during the time

of the apostles, (as appears from Rev. ii. 6, 15,) and are taken to be

the fathers of the Gnostics. Some of the ancient fathers affirm that

Nicolas, one of the seven first deacons, was the founder of this sect;

that being blamed by the apostles for keeping company with his wife,

whom he had left before to live in continence, he invented this brutal

error to excuse his proceeding, and thought that impurity was a

necessary means to attain to eternal happiness: others say that the holy

apostles, reproaching him for being jealous of his wife, who was very

handsome, he sent for her, and in a great assembly gave her leave to

marry whom she pleased: upon which some libertines framed a heresy of

their own, and unjustly called it by his name. They denied the Divinity

of CHRIST by an hypostatical union, saying, the Divine inhabited, but

was not united to, the human nature; they held that all pleasures were

good, and that it was lawful to eat meats offered to idols. Becoming too

much known by this name, they assumed that of the Gnostics, and divided

themselves into other sects, called Phibionites, Stratiotics, Levitics,

and Barborites.

NIPTER. (_Gr._ In Latin, _pediluvium_.) The ceremony of _washing feet_.

This is performed by the Greek Christians on Good Friday, in imitation

of our SAVIOUR, who on that day washed his disciples’ feet with his own

hands.

In the monasteries, the abbot represents our SAVIOUR, and twelve of the

monks the twelve apostles. Among these the steward and porter have

always a place; the former acts the part of St. Peter, and imitates his

refusal to let JESUS wash his feet; the latter personates the traitor

Judas, and is loaded with scoffs and derision. The office used on this

occasion is extant in the _Euchologium_.

NOCTURNS. Services anciently held during the night. In the Breviary, the

Psalter is divided into portions, the first of which consists of

fourteen Psalms, the second of three, and the third of three. These all

form a part of the Sunday office of matins, each of which portions is

called a nocturn. These were designed to be read at these nightly

assemblies, with other services appointed in order for the various

nights.

NOETIANS. Christian heretics in the third century, followers of Noëtus,

a philosopher of Ephesus, who pretended that he was another Moses sent

by GOD, and that his brother was a new Aaron. His heresy consisted in

affirming that there was but one person in the GODHEAD, and that the

WORD and the HOLY SPIRIT were but external denominations given to GOD in

consequence of different operations: that as creator he is called

FATHER; as incarnate, SON; and as descending upon the apostles, the HOLY

GHOST.

This heresiarch, being summoned to appear before the assembly of the

Church of Ephesus, to give an account of his doctrine, made a very

catholic profession of faith; but he had no sooner gained a dozen

followers, than he began publicly to teach and spread his opinions. He

was excommunicated by the Church of Ephesus, and after his death denied

ecclesiastical burial.

Being reprehended by his superiors, he is said to have replied, “What

harm have I done? I adore one only GOD; I own none but him. He was born,

suffered, and is dead.”

NOMINALISTS. At the restoration of the study of logic in the eleventh

century, many disputes took place, trivial in their origin, but

important on account of the colour which they gave to religious

controversy, concerning the objects of logic. Agreeing that the

essential object of logic was the discussion of _universals_, as

distinguished from _particular_ or _individual_ things, two parties were

formed on the question whether universals are _words_ and _names_ only,

or _things_ and _real essences_. Those who declared them to be only

names and words, and who of course, therefore, determined that logic was

only conversant with words, were called _Nominalists_, and basing their

philosophy on that of Aristotle, were principally supported by the

talent and authority of Roscellinus. Those who held that _universals_

were _real existences_, and so that logic was conversant with _things_

and _realities_, were called _Realists_. They supported their hypothesis

on the authority of Plato. Johannes Scotus Erigena, in the ninth

century, had taught this doctrine, but without leaving behind him any

school of avowed followers. The controversy with the _Nominalists_ was

commenced in the eleventh century, and in the thirteenth the greater

part of the schoolmen were _Realists_.

NOMINATION. This is the offering of a clerk to him who has the right of

presentation, that he may present him to the ordinary. (For form of

Nomination, see _Curacy_.)

The nominator must appoint his clerk within six months after the

avoidance, for, if he does not, and the patron presents his clerk before

the bishop hath taken any benefit of the lapse, he is bound to admit

that clerk.

But where one has the nomination, and another the presentation, if the

right of presentation should afterwards come to the queen, it has been

held, that he that has the nomination will be entitled to both, because

the queen, who is to present, is only an instrument to him who

nominates, and it is not becoming the dignity of a queen to be

subservient to another; but the nominator should name one to the lord

chancellor, who, in the name of the queen, should present to the

ordinary.

And as the presentation, so the right of nomination, may be forfeited to

the queen. It is true, if the patron, upon a corrupt agreement unknown

to the nominator, presents his clerk, this shall not be prejudicial to

the nominator within the statute of simony; but if the nominator

corruptly agrees to nominate, his right of nomination shall be forfeited

to the queen.

NONES. A term employed in the Roman calendar, inserted in all correct

editions of the Prayer Book. The nones were the fifth day of each month,

excepting in March, May, July, and October, when the nones fell on the

7th day. They were so called from their being the ninth day in each

month before the ides.—_Stephens’s Book of Common Prayer_, notes on the

Calendar, p. 270.

NONJURORS. Those conscientious men who refused to renounce their oath of

allegiance to King James II., and to transfer it to the Prince of

Orange. What was at first a necessary separation from the Church of

England, degenerated, after a time, into a wilful schism. The history of

the Nonjurors is written by Lathbury (_London_, 1845).

NORMAN. The highest development of Romanesque architecture in England,

which succeeded the Saxon at the Conquest, and admitted the pointed arch

which marks the Transition, about 1145. It must be observed, however,

that many buildings, generally called Norman, and which agree with the

Norman style in all essential particulars, except in the accident of

their being built before 1066, must, architecturally, be classed with

this style. The Norman is so absolutely distinguished from all Gothic

orders by the round arch, that it is needless to enter into its

differentials. Several of its peculiarities will be found under the

heads _Buttress_, _Capital_, _Cathedral_, _Mouldings_, _Pier_, _Pillar_.

NORTH SIDE. In the rubric immediately preceding the office for the Holy

Communion, the priest is directed to stand at the _north side_ of the

table. As this work is not a Dictionary of the English language, it

might seem beside our purpose to offer any explanation of those words,

which are sufficiently clear, though they have been perplexed by the

unreasonable scruples of some of our generation. Johnson gives the

following as one of the definitions of _side_, “any part of any body

opposed to any other part:” another is, “right or left.” The north side

then is that which is opposed to the south; viz. the left side to those

who look to the east, where the holy table is placed. By a side is meant

that which is _lateral_, as contradistinguished from that which is

_opposite_ or _vertical_. A side is the short end of the table, and so

the Scotch liturgy understood the word, “the _north side_, or _end

thereof_.” The table usually in English churches stands at the end of

the chancel: the exceptions are so few as clearly to prove a rule; and

it must be obvious to common sense, that when placed differently, the

priest’s position there should be the same relatively to the church as

if the table stood at the east; that is, at the _left side_ of those who

look towards the chancel from the body of the church. Universal custom

has been in conformity with the plain meaning of the rule; and the

priest always has stood at that which formed the north or left side of

the _square table_. Had the intention of the compilers of the liturgy

been different, the rubric would have been worded in some such way as

this, “the priest standing at the _north-west corner_, or _angle_,” or

“_left angle_.” An angle, or corner, is not a side; and could never be

so interpreted, unless the table were placed diagonally. The following

authorities are explicit.

“The design is, that the priest may be the better seen and heard, which,

as our altars are now placed, he cannot be, but at the north or south

side. And as Bishop Beveridge has shown, that whenever in the ancient

liturgies the minister is directed to stand before the table, the north

side of it is always meant.”—_Wheatly._

“This seems to have been ordered, for the purpose of avoiding the

fashion of the priest’s standing with his face towards the east, as is

the Popish practice.”—_L’ Estrange._

As to the words in the rubric preceding the Collect for the Queen, _the

priest standing as before_, Mr. Collis observes, that these mean “not

standing as he rehearsed the Commandments; for if that were designed

nothing would have been said here. But _standing as before_, namely, as

he stood at the north side of the table, before he was ordered to turn

to the people. When the Commandments are read by him, he directs himself

to the people; when he comes to the collect, he directs himself to the

Almighty by prayer.”

NOTES OF THE CHURCH. The necessity of devising some general notes of the

Church, and of not entering at once on controversial debates concerning

all points of doctrine and discipline, was early perceived by Christian

theologians. Tertullian appeals, in refutation of the heresies of his

age, to the antiquity of the Church derived from the apostles, and its

priority to all heretical communities; Irenæus, to the unity of the

Church’s doctrines, and the succession of her bishops from the apostles;

St. Augustine, to the consent of nations; St. Jerome, to the continued

duration of the Church from the apostles, and the very appellation of

the Christian name. In modern times, Bellarmine the Romanist added

several other notes, such as,—agreement with the primitive Church in

doctrine; union of members among themselves and with their head;

sanctity of doctrine and of founders; continuance of miracles and

prophecy; confession of adversaries; the unhappy end of those who are

opposed to the Church, and the temporal felicity conferred on it. Luther

assigned as notes of the true Church, the true and uncorrupted preaching

of the gospel; administration of baptism, of the eucharist, and of the

keys; a legitimate ministry, public service in a known tongue, and

tribulations internally and externally. Calvin reckons only truth of

doctrine and right administration of the sacraments, and seems to reject

succession. The learned theologians of the Church of England adopt a

different view in some respects. Dr. Field admits the following notes of

the Church: truth of doctrine; use of sacraments and means instituted by

_Christ_; union under lawful ministers; antiquity without change of

doctrine; lawful succession, i. e. with true doctrine; and universality

in the _successive_ sense, i. e. the prevalence of the Church

successively in all nations. Bishop Taylor admits, as notes of the

Church, antiquity, duration, succession of bishops, union of members

among themselves and with CHRIST, sanctity of doctrine.

Palmer, from whom this account is abridged, takes, as notes of the

Church, what the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan, Creed gives, as the

Church’s attributes, “ONE, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic.”

NOVATIANS. A Christian sect, which sprang up in the third century;

occasioned by the jealousy which Novatian, a priest of Rome, conceived

upon seeing Cornelius raised to the episcopate of the Roman Church, to

which he himself aspired. Enraged at the disappointment, he endeavoured

to blacken the character of Cornelius, by charging him with a criminal

lenity towards those who had apostatized during the persecution of

Decius. He maintained, that such persons ought indeed to be exhorted to

repentance, but never to be absolved by the Church, reserving their

absolution to GOD alone, who had the power and authority to remit sins.

Hence he was led to deny, in general, that the Church had the power of

remitting mortal sins, upon the offender’s repentance. And at last he

went so far as to deny that apostates could ever hope for pardon even

from _God_ himself: a doctrine which so terrified some of those who had

lapsed and repented, that, in despair, they quite abjured Christianity,

and returned to Paganism.

The followers of Novatian added to this original heresy of their master

another, which was the unlawfulness of second marriages; against which

they were as severe as against apostates; denying communion for ever to

such persons as married a second time after baptism, and treating widows

who married again as adulteresses.

As these heretics pretended that the Church was corrupted by the

communion it granted to sinners, it is no wonder they rebaptized those

they gained over to their sect. In baptizing, they used the received

forms of the Church, and had the same belief concerning the FATHER, SON,

and HOLY GHOST, in whose name they baptized. St. Cyprian rejected their

baptism, as he did that of all heretics; but it was admitted by the

eighth canon of the Council of Nice.

The Novatians put on the external appearance of great piety and purity;

and though they did not refuse the title of Novatians, they assumed the

proud appellation of _Catharii_, that is, the Pure, or Puritans; and

like the Pharisees among the Jews, they would not suffer other men to

come near them, lest their purity should be defiled thereby.

The schism which Novatian had formed in the Roman Church was not

confined to Rome, nor to Italy, nor even to the West. It made its way

into the East, and subsisted a long time at Alexandria, in several

provinces of Asia, at Constantinople, in Scythia, and in Africa. The

Novatians abounded particularly in Phrygia and Paphlagonia. Constantine

seems to have favoured them a little by a law of the year 326; which

preserves to them their churches and burying-places, provided they never

belonged to the Catholic Church. But in a famous edict about the year

331, he sets them at the head of the most detestable of all heretics,

forbidding them to hold public or private assemblies, confiscating their

oratories or churches, and condemning their leaders to banishment. It is

pretended this edict had not the designed effect as to the Novatians, by

means of Acesius their bishop, who resided at Constantinople, and was in

great esteem with the emperor, on account of his virtuous and

irreproachable life. The Novatian sect was entirely extinct, or at least

reduced to a very inconsiderable party, about the middle of the fifth

century.

NOVEMBER, FIFTH OF. (See _Forms of Prayer_.)

NOVICES, in countries where monachism prevails, are those persons who

are candidates, or probationers, for a religious life. The time of their

probation is called the Noviciate; after which, if their behaviour is

approved, they are professed, that is, admitted into the order, and

allowed to make the vows, wear the habit, &c.

The novices among the Jesuits are disciplined in a very peculiar manner.

To make them the better understand the nature and extent of the

obedience they owe to their superiors, they have certain emblematical

pictures in their chambers or studies. For example: in the middle of the

canvass is a boy stooping down with a piece of timber on his shoulders,

with this motto, _fortiter_, upon it. He has a harp in his hand, to

intimate the cheerfulness of his submission. On the right hand is a

little dog in a rising posture, to show that the novice is to obey with

despatch and expedition. His breast is open, to show that his superiors

have his heart as well as his limbs at their service. His mouth is

represented shut, to show that there must be no grumbling or contesting

the point with his superiors; and his ears are stopped, to intimate that

he must submit to orders however unacceptable to that sense.

If a novice breaks through any part of this submission, he has a penance

enjoined him according to the nature of his misbehaviour. For instance,

if he discovers a haughty disposition, he is ordered to go into the

infirmary and perform the coarsest offices to the sick and decrepit. If

he refuses to do as he is bid, or murmurs at it, he is brought into the

refectory at dinner or supper time, and obliged to confess his fault

upon his knees before all the company.

NUMBERS, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. It is the

fourth book of the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses, and receives its

denomination from the numbering of the families of Israel, by Moses and

Aaron; who mustered the tribes, and marshalled the army of the Hebrews,

in their passage through the wilderness.

A great part of this Book is historical, relating several remarkable

events which happened in that journey; as, the sedition of Aaron and

Miriam; the rebellion of Korah and his companions; the murmurings of the

whole body of the people; Balaam’s prophecy; the miraculous budding of

Aaron’s rod, &c. It gives likewise a distinct account of the several

stages of journeyings through the wilderness. But the greatest part of

this Book is spent in enumerating the several laws and ordinances, not

mentioned in the preceding books; such as, the office and number of the

Levites; the trial by the waters of jealousy; the rites to be observed

by the Nazarites; the making of fringes on the borders of their

garments; the law of inheritance; of vows; of the cities of refuge, &c.

The Book of Numbers comprehends the history of about thirty-eight years,

though the most part of the things related in it fell out in the first

and last of these years, and it does not appear when those things were

done which are related in the middle of the Book.

NUMERALS. The designation of twelve priests, in the cathedral of Nola

(inferior to the canons).—_Jebb._

NUNS. Those women who devote themselves, in a cloister or nunnery, to a

religious life. (See _Monks_.)

There were women, in the ancient Christian Church, who made public and

open profession of virginity, before the monastic life, or name, was

known in the world; as appears from the writings of Cyprian and

Tertullian. These, for distinction’s sake, are sometimes called

ecclesiastical virgins, and were commonly enrolled in the canon or

_matricula_ of the Church. They differed from the monastic virgins

chiefly in this—that they lived privately in their fathers’ houses,

whereas the others lived in communities. But their profession of

virginity was not so strict as to make it criminal in them to marry

afterwards, if they thought fit.

In the following ages, the censures of the Church began to be inflicted

upon professed virgins who should marry; and these censures seem to have

grown more severe, in proportion to the esteem and value Christians set

upon celibacy and the monastic life. Yet there never was any decree for

rescinding or making null such marriages.

Some canons allowed virgins to be consecrated at twenty-five years of

age, and others at sixteen or seventeen; but time quickly showed, that

neither of these terms were so conveniently fixed as they might be.

Other canons, therefore, required virgins to be forty years old, before

they were veiled, as may be seen in the Councils of Agde and Saragossa.

And the imperial laws decreed, that, if any virgin was veiled before

that age, either by the violence or hatred of her parents, (which was a

case that often happened,) she was at liberty to marry. Hence appears a

wide difference between the practice of the ancient Christian Church in

this matter, and that of the modern Church of Rome.

As to the consecration of virgins, it had some things peculiar in it. It

was usually performed publicly in the church by the bishop. The virgin

made a public profession of her resolution, and then the bishop put upon

her the accustomed habit of sacred virgins. One part of this habit was a

veil, called the _sacrum velamen_; another was a kind of mitre, or

coronet, worn on the head. In some places the custom of shaving

professed virgins prevailed; as it did in the monasteries of Syria and

Egypt, in St. Jerome’s time: but the Council of Gangra strongly

condemned this practice, accounting that a woman’s hair was given her by

GOD as a mark of subjection. Theodosius the Great added a civil sanction

to this ecclesiastical decree: whence it appears that the tonsure of

virgins was anciently no allowed custom of the Church, however it came

to prevail in the contrary practice of later ages.

As the society of virgins was of great esteem in the Church, so they had

some particular honours paid to them. Their persons were sacred, and

severe laws were made against any that should presume to offer the least

violence to them. The emperor Constantine charged his own revenues with

the maintenance of them; and his mother Helena often entertained them

and waited upon them at her own table. The Church gave them also a share

of her own revenues, and assigned them an honourable station in the

churches, whither the most noble and religious matrons used to resort

with earnestness to receive their salutations and embraces.

The ancient names of these virgins were _Nonnæ_, _Moniales_,

_Sanctimoniales_, and _Ascetriæ_. The term _Nonnæ_ (from whence our

English word nuns) is, according to Hospinian, an Egyptian name

signifying a virgin.

In the Romish Church, when a young woman is to be professed, that is, to

be made a nun, the habit, veil, and ring of the candidate are carried to

the altar, and she herself, accompanied by her nearest relations, is

conducted to the bishop. Two ancient venerable matrons attend upon her

as bridewomen. When the bishop has said mass, the archpriest chants an

anthem, the subject of which is, that she ought to have her lamp

lighted, because the bridegroom is coming to meet her. Then the bishop

calls her in a kind of recitative, to which she answers in the same

manner. Being come before the prelate, and on her knees, she attends to

the exhortation he makes to her with regard to a religious life, and in

the mean time the choir chants the Litanies. Then the bishop, having the

crosier in his left hand, pronounces the benediction. She then rises up,

and the bishop consecrates the new habit, sprinkling it with holy water.

When the candidate has put on her religious habit, she again presents

herself before the bishop, and sings on her knees, _Ancilla Christi

sum_, &c., i. e. “I am the servant of CHRIST.” Then she receives the

veil, and afterwards the ring, by which she is married to JESUS CHRIST;

and, lastly, the crown of virginity. When she is crowned, an anathema is

denounced against all who shall attempt to break her vows. After the

communion, the prelate gives her up to the conduct of the abbess, saying

to her: “Take care to preserve pure and spotless this young woman, whom

GOD has consecrated,” &c.—_Broughton._

NUNC DIMITTIS. The first words in Latin of the Song of Simeon, “LORD,

now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,” appointed as one of the

hymns to be used after the second lesson at even-song. It was used in

this place in the most ancient times. It is found in the Apostolical

Constitutions. And even at the present day this hymn is repeated at

evening prayer in the patriarchate of Constantinople. The hymn occurs in

the Latin office for compline, from which, and from the vesper service,

our office of Evening Prayer was compiled.

After the second evening lesson out of the Epistles of the holy

apostles, this hymn is most commonly used. The author of it is supposed

to be that holy doctor whom the Jews call Simeon the Just, son of the

famous Rabbi Hillel, a man of eminent integrity, and one who opposed the

then common opinion of the Messiah’s temporal kingdom. The occasion of

composing it was his meeting CHRIST in the temple when he came to be

offered there, wherein GOD fulfilled his promise to him, that he should

not die till he had seen the Messiah: taking JESUS therefore in his

arms, inspired with joy and the HOLY GHOST, he sang this “Nunc

dimittis:” and though we cannot see our SAVIOUR with our bodily eyes as

he did, yet he is, by the writings of the apostles, daily presented to

the eyes of our faith; and if we were as much concerned for heaven, and

as loose from the love of this world, as old Simeon was, and as we ought

to be, we might, upon the view of CHRIST in His holy word by faith, be

daily ready to sing this hymn; which was indited by the SPIRIT, recorded

in holy writ, and is adopted into the public service of all Christian

Churches, Greek and Latin, Reformed and Roman, and used to be sung in

extraordinary by divers saints and martyrs a little before their

death.—_Dean Comber._

This hymn, called from the Latin beginning of it “Nunc dimittis,”

expresses the gratitude of good old Simeon, “a just man and devout,” as

we read in St. Luke ii. 25–32, “and waiting for the consolation of

Israel; to whom it was revealed that he should not die till he had seen

the LORD’S CHRIST.” Accordingly, “he came by the SPIRIT into the temple;

and when the parents brought in the child JESUS, he took him up in his

arms, (image to yourselves the scene, I beg you,) and blessed GOD, and

said, LORD, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,” that is, in

comfort, “according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

which thou hast prepared” to set “before the face of all people.” And

the following sentence hath a strong appearance of being designed by the

HOLY GHOST to intimate, (whether the speaker of it perceived the design

or not,) that, contrary to the expected and natural order of things,

CHRIST should first “be a light to lighten the Gentiles;” then,

afterwards, “the glory of GOD’S people Israel.” To perceive the fitness

of Simeon’s thanksgiving for our use, it needs only to be remembered,

and ever should in repeating it, that we also “have seen the LORD’S

salvation.” For though we have not yet beheld our SAVIOUR with our

bodily eyes, to that of faith he is exhibited continually in the gospel

history and sacraments: we may meet him in his Church; we may converse

with him in our private meditations. And this we should think happiness

enough for us here, whatever else we want or suffer; and be always

prepared, and always willing, to “bless GOD,” and “depart in

peace.”—_Abp. Secker._

This hymn comes very properly after the second lesson, which is always

taken out of the New Testament, wherein is contained and delivered to us

that gospel, the enjoyment and participation of which is the ground and

foundation of the whole hymn. It should be added, that this hymn is

addressed to GOD; and since it may be used as the personal address of

every devout Christian, no one should repeat it after a careless manner;

but consider to whom it is repeated, and utter the whole after a

suitable manner.—_Dr. Bennet._

NUNCIO. An ambassador from the pope to some prince or state; or a person

who attends on the pope’s behalf at a congress, or at an assembly of

several ambassadors. A nuncio, in fact, is the pope’s ambassador, as the

_internuncio_ is his envoy extraordinary. A nuncio has a jurisdiction,

and may delegate judges in all the states where he resides, except in

France, where he has no authority beyond that of a simple ambassador.

Sometimes a nuncio is invested with the functions of a _legatus natus_.

(See _Legate_.)

OATHS. “As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian

men by our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and James his apostle, so we judge that

the Christian religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when

the magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done

according to the prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment, and

truth.”—_Article_ xxxix. The first oath mentioned in the Holy Scriptures

is that of Abraham, Gen. xiv. 22, 23.

The _Oath of Allegiance_ is as follows:—“I, A. B., do sincerely promise

and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance, to her

Majesty, Queen Victoria. So help me GOD.” This is taken by Protestant

dissenting ministers, when licensed by the civil magistrates; as is also

the following:

_Oath of Supremacy_:—“I, A. B., do swear, that I do from my heart abhor,

detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and

position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any

authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their

subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign

prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any

jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or

spiritual, within this realm. So help me GOD.”

OBADIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. This

prophecy is contained in one single chapter, and is partly an invective

against the cruelty of the Edomites, who mocked and derided the children

of Israel, as they passed into captivity, and, with other enemies their

confederates, invaded and oppressed these poor strangers, and divided

the spoil amongst them; and partly a prediction of the deliverance and

salvation of Israel, and of the victory and triumph of the whole Church

over her enemies.

The time when this prophecy was delivered is wholly uncertain. The

Hebrews believe, that this prophet was the same with the governor of

Ahab’s house, mentioned in the First Book of Kings, who hid and fed the

hundred prophets, whom Jezebel would have destroyed. Some say he was

that Obadiah whom Josiah made overseer of the works of the temple. But

most writers make him contemporary with Hosea, Amos, and Joel.

OBIT. An office performed at funerals, when the corpse was in the church

before it was buried; it afterwards came to be performed on the

anniversary of the death of a benefactor. Thus, in many of our colleges,

the obit or anniversary of the death of the founder is piously observed.

(See _Commemoration_.) The _obiit Sundays_ (once a quarter) at St.

George’s at Windsor, were celebrated formerly with great magnificence,

and are to a certain degree still. In Kennet’s Register, p. 765, (as

quoted in the Hiereugia Anglicana, p. 211,) there is the following

notice. “1662, Sept. 10.—This day was published the service that is

performed in the King’s Free Chapel of St. George, in the castle of

Windsor, upon Obiit Sunday in the morning, (that is, the Sunday before

every quarter day,) and at the offering up of the achievements of the

deceased Knights of the Garter.

_The Rubric._ The service is the same that is appointed in the Book of

Common Prayer, until you come to the Psalm for the day of the month,

instead of which you have these proper Psalms, xxi., cxlvi., cxlvii.

After the Psalm the junior canon upon the place cometh out of his stall

with the verger before him, and readeth the lesson at the desk, which is

taken out of the forty-fourth chapter of Ecclesiasticus. After the

lesson Te Deum laudamus is sung. After the Te Deum is ended, they all

depart out of the quire in the body of the church to sermon. After

sermon is ended, the canons go to the altar, and the quire go to their

stalls, and the communion service beginneth. The Epistle is taken out of

the twenty-third chapter of Deuteronomy; the Gospel in the fifth of St.

John, beginning at the twenty-fourth and ending at the thirtieth verse.

After the sacrament (which is always on the Obiit Sunday) is ended, and

the blessing given at the altar, the canons go to their stalls, and

these following prayers are read: