The name _Papa_ was sometimes given to the inferior clergy, who were

called _Papæ Pisinni_, that is, _little fathers_; in comparison of whom

Balsamon calls presbyters _Protopapæ_, i.e. _chief fathers_.

The Greek Christians have continued to give the name _Papa_ to their

priests. And there is, in all Oriental cathedrals, and at Messina in

Sicily, (where Oriental customs are largely retained,) there was

formerly an ecclesiastical dignitary styled _Protopapa_, who, besides a

jurisdiction over several churches, had a particular respect paid him by

the cathedral. For, upon Whitsunday, the prebendaries went in procession

to the _Protopapa’s_ church, (called the _Catholic_,) and attended him

to the cathedral, where he sang solemn _Vespers_, according to the Greek

rituals, and was afterwards waited upon back to his own church with the

same pompous respect. The Vespers, and the Epistle and Gospel, at

Pentecost, are still sung by Greek priests.—_Pirri-Sicilia Sacra._ (See

_Pops_.)

PAPISTS. (See _Popery_ and _Roman Catholics_. For the form of

reconciling Papists to the Church of England, see _Abjuration_.)

PARABLE. The parabolical, enigmatical, figurative, and sententious way

of speaking was the language of the Eastern sages and learned men; and

nothing was more insupportable than to hear a fool utter parables: “The

legs of the lame are not equal; so is a parable in the mouth of fools.”

(Prov. xxvi. 7.)

It is generally applied, as in the New Testament, to a figurative

discourse, or a story with a typical meaning; but in the Old Testament,

it sometimes signifies a mere discourse: as _Job’s parable_, which

occupies many chapters of the book of Job (xxvi.——xxxi. inclusive). The

same title is applied by its inspired composer to the seventy-eighth

Psalm, (ver. 2,) which is historical, not deeply mystical, like the

forty-ninth.

Our SAVIOUR in the Gospel seldom speaks to the people but in parables:

thereby verifying the prophecy of Isaiah, (vi. 9,) that the people

should see without knowing, and hear without understanding, in the midst

of instruction. Some parables in the New Testament are supposed to be

true histories. In others our SAVIOUR seems to allude to some points of

history in those times; as that describing a king who went into a far

country to receive a kingdom. This may hint at the history of Archelaus,

who, after the death of his father, Herod the Great, went to Rome, to

receive from Augustus the confirmation of his father’s will, by which he

had the kingdom of Judea left to him.

PARABOLANI. (_Lat._) In the ancient Christian Church were certain

officers, deputed to attend upon the sick, and to take care of them all

the time of their weakness.

At Alexandria, the Parabolani were incorporated into a society, to the

number of 500 or 600, elected by the bishop of the place, and under his

direction. But that this was not an order peculiar to the Church of

Alexandria is very evident, because there is mention made of Parabolani

at Ephesus at the time of the second council held there. (A. D. 449.)

They were called _Parabolani_ from their undertaking a most dangerous

and hazardous office, (παραβολον εργον,) in attending the sick,

especially in infectious and pestilential diseases. The Greeks used to

call those παραβολοι, who hired themselves out to fight with wild beasts

in the amphitheatre; for the word παραβαλλειν signifies exposing a man’s

life to danger. In this sense, the Christians were often called

Parabolani by the heathens, because they were so ready to expose their

lives to martyrdom. And, upon the like account, the name _Parabolani_

was given to the officers we are speaking of.

These Parabolani, being men of a bold and daring spirit, were ready upon

all occasions to engage in any quarrel that should happen in Church or

State, as they seem to have done in the dispute between Cyril the bishop

and Orestes the governor of Alexandria. Wherefore the emperor Theodosius

put them under the inspection of the Præfectus Augustalis, and strictly

prohibited them to appear at any public shows, or in the common council

of the city, or in the courts of judicature, unless any of them had a

cause of his own, or appeared as syndic for the whole body. Which shows

that the civil government always looked upon the Parabolani as a

formidable body of men, and kept a watchful eye over them, that, while

they were serving the Church, they might not do any disservice to the

State.—_Bingham._

PARACLETE. A comforter and advocate; a title applied to GOD the HOLY

GHOST. (John xv. 26.)—See _Holy Ghost_.

PARACLETICE, (_Gr._,) among the Greek Christians, is a book of anthems,

or hymns, so called, because they chiefly tend to comfort the sinner, or

because they are partly invocatory, consisting of pious addresses to GOD

and the saints.

The hymns or anthems in this book are not appropriated to particular

days, but contain something proper to be recited every day, in the mass,

vespers, matins, and other offices.

Allatius finds great fault with this book, and says there are many

things in it disrespectful to the Virgin Mary, and many things ascribed

to her against all reason and equity; that it affirms that John the

Baptist, after his death, preached CHRIST in hell; and that CHRIST

himself, when he descended into hell, freed all mankind from the

punishments of that place and the power of the devil.

PARAPET. A low wall protecting the gutter in the roof of churches or

other buildings. Early parapets are universally plain, but, with the

Decorated style, they begin to be panelled, and sometimes pierced with

various patterns, and in the Perpendicular they are very frequently

crenellated.

PARAPHRASE. (_Chaldaic._) It is commonly believed that the first

translation of the holy Bible was in Chaldee, and that the ignorance of

the Jews in the Hebrew tongue, after the Babylonish captivity, was the

occasion of that version, called the Targum, or Chaldee paraphrase,

which was neither done by one author, nor at the same time, nor made

upon all the books of the Old Testament. The first upon the Pentateuch

was done by Onkelos, a proselyte, who lived about the time of our

SAVIOUR, if we believe the Hebrew authors; the second upon the

Pentateuch is attributed to Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, who is not the

same with the Theodotion, which in Greek has the same signification as

Jonathan in Hebrew; that is, the gift of GOD. The third upon the same

book is called the Targum Hierosolymitanum, or the Jerusalem paraphrase;

the author of which is not certainly known, nor the time when it was

composed. Schikard believes it to bear the same date as the Targum of

Jerusalem, which was written about 300 years after the last destruction

of the temple, burnt in the seventieth year after our LORD’S

incarnation. There are, besides these, three paraphrases upon the books

of Moses; another upon the Psalms, Job, and Proverbs; there is also one

upon the Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, but

the author not known; and we have a Chaldee paraphrase upon Joshua,

Judges, Kings, and the Prophets, by Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, who,

according to the Jews, had before written the paraphrase upon the

Pentateuch.

Several learned men believe that all the rabbins say concerning the

Chaldee paraphrase is fabulous, and that the oldest of all the

translations is that of the Septuagint: it is also added that they are

later than St. Jerome, who, having great acquaintance with the most

learned rabbins, and having written so much upon that subject, could not

fail of speaking of the Chaldee paraphrases, if there had been any such

in his time. The Jews affirm they were composed in the time of the

prophets, and they have them in so great veneration, that they are

obliged to read in their synagogue a section of Onkelos’ paraphrase,

when they have read a Hebrew text in the Bible.

PARCLOSE. Screens separating chapels, especially those at the east end

of the aisles, from the body of the church, are called _parcloses_.

PARDONS. (See _Indulgences_.) In the Romish Church, _pardons_ or

_indulgences_ are releasement from the temporal punishment of sin; the

power of granting which is supposed to be lodged in the pope, to be

dispensed by him to the bishops and inferior clergy, for the benefit of

penitents throughout the Church. In the theory of pardons, the point is

assumed, that holy men may accomplish more than is strictly required of

them by the Divine law; that there is a meritorious value in this

overplus; that such value is transferable, and that it is deposited in

the spiritual treasury of the Church, subject to the disposal of the

pope, to be, on certain conditions, applied to the benefit of those

whose deficiencies stand in need of such a compensation. A distinction

is then drawn between the temporal and the eternal punishment of sin;

the former of which not only embraces penances, and all satisfactions

for sin in the present life, but also the pains of purgatory in the

next. These are supposed to be within the control and jurisdiction of

the Church; and, in the case of any individual, may be ameliorated or

terminated by the imputation of so much of the overabundant merits of

the saints, &c., as may be necessary to balance the deficiencies of the

sufferer.

The privilege of selling pardons, it is well known, was frequently

granted by the pope to monastic bodies in every part of the Church; and

the scandals and disorders consequent upon them, was one of the first

moving causes of the Reformation. Against these most pernicious and

soul-destroying errors, the Church of England protests in her

twenty-second Article: “The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory,

_pardons_, worshipping, and adoration, as well of images as of relics,

and also of invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and

grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word

of GOD.”

In treating this subject we will first show what the Romish doctrine is,

and then how repugnant it is to Scripture.

As for the first, what their doctrine concerning pardons is, it is

difficult to determine; they have had so many crotchets about it, that

one can scarce tell where to find them. We shall endeavour to explain it

in these following propositions:—

First, They assert, as Bellarmine saith, that “many holy men have

suffered more for GOD and righteousness’ sake than the guilt of the

temporal punishment, which they were obnoxious to for faults committed

by them, could exact.”

Secondly, Hence they say, as Johannes de Turrecremata, “That one can

satisfy for another, or one can acceptably perform satisfactory

punishment for another,” viz. “because they suffer more than is due to

their own sins; and seeing all sufferings are satisfactory, what they

undergo more than is due to their own is satisfactory for other men’s

sins.”

Thirdly, “Seeing they who thus undergo satisfactory punishments for

others do not appoint the fruit of this their satisfaction to any

particular persons, it therefore,” as Roffensis saith, “becomes

profitable to the whole Church in common, so that it is now called the

common treasury of the Church, to wit, that from thence may be fetched

whatsoever any others lack of due satisfaction.”

Fourthly, “This common treasure,” saith Bellarmine, “is the foundation

of pardons.” So that, as he saith, “the Church hath power to apply this

treasure of satisfaction, and by this to grant our pardons.”

By this, therefore, we may have some sight into this great mystery, and

perceive what they mean by pardons. For as Laymanus the Jesuit saith, “A

pardon or indulgence is the remission of a temporal punishment due to

GOD without the sacrament, by the application of the satisfaction of

CHRIST and the saints.” Or, as Gregorius de Valentia saith, “An

ecclesiastical pardon or indulgence is a relaxation of a temporal

punishment by GOD’S judgment due to actual sins, after the remission of

the fault made without the sacrament (of penance), by the application of

the superabundant satisfaction of CHRIST and the saints, by him who hath

lawful authority to do it.” But let us hear what a pope himself saith

concerning these pardons. Leo X., in his decretal, ann. 1518, saith,

“The pope of Rome may, for reasonable causes, grant to the same saints

of CHRIST who, charity uniting them, are members of CHRIST, whether they

be in this life or in purgatory, pardons out of the superabundancy of

the merits of CHRIST and the saints; and that be used, for the living as

well as for the dead, by his apostolic power of granting pardons, to

dispense or distribute the treasure of the merits of CHRIST and the

saints, to confer the indulgence itself, after the manner of an

absolution, or transfer it after the manner of a suffrage.” So that, as

Durandus saith, “The Church can communicate from this treasure to any

one, or several, for their sins, in part or in whole, according as it

pleases the Church to communicate more or less from the treasure.” And

hence it is that we find it said in the book of indulgences or pardons,

that “Pope Sylvester and Gregory, that consecrated the Lateran Church,

gave so many pardons, that none could number them but GOD; Boniface

being witness, who said, ‘if men knew the pardons of the Lateran Church,

they would not need to go by sea to the holy sepulchre. In the chapel of

the saints are twenty-eight stairs that stood before the house of Pilate

in Jerusalem. Whosoever shall ascend those stairs with devotion hath,

for every sin, nine years of pardons; but he that ascends them kneeling,

he shall free one soul out of purgatory.’” So that it seems the pope can

not only give me a pardon for sins past, but to come; yea, and not only

give me a pardon for my own sins, but power to pardon other men’s sins,

else I could not redeem a soul from purgatory.

We have been the larger in the opening of this great Romish mystery,

because we need do no more than open it; for, being thus opened, it

shows itself to be a ridiculous and impious doctrine, utterly repugnant

to the Scriptures. For this doctrine, thus explained, is grounded upon

works of supererogation; for it is from the treasury of these good works

that the Romish Church fetches all her pardons. Now this is but a bad

foundation, contrary to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; as we have seen

in the fourteenth Article. And if the foundation be rotten, the

superstructure cannot be sound. Again, this doctrine supposes one man

may and doth satisfy for another; whereas the Scriptures hold forth

“CHRIST [as] our propitiation,” (1 John ii. 2,) “Who trode the

wine-press of his Father’s wrath alone” (Isaiah lxiii. 3). Lastly, this

doctrine supposes that a pope, a priest, a finite creature, can pardon

sins; whereas the Scripture holds forth this as the prerogative only of

the true GOD. For “who is a GOD like unto thee,” saith the prophet

Micah, “that pardoneth iniquities?” (Mic. vii. 18.) And therefore the

scribes and Pharisees, when they said, “Who can forgive sins but GOD

alone?” (Luke v. 21,) what they said, though wickedly said by them, not

acknowledging CHRIST to be GOD, and so not to have that power, yet it

was truly said in itself: for, had not CHRIST been GOD, he would have

had no more power to forgive sins than the pope.

And whatsoever the doctors of the Romish Church now hold, we are sure

the Fathers of old constantly affirmed that it was GOD only could

forgive sin. So Chrysostom saith, “For none can pardon sins but only

GOD.” Euthymius, “None can truly pardon sins, but he alone who beholds

the thoughts of men.” Gregory, “Thou who alone sparest, who alone

forgivest sins. For who can forgive sins but GOD alone?” Ambrose, “For

this cannot be common to any man with CHRIST to forgive sins. This is

his gift only who took away the sins of the world.” Certainly the

Fathers never thought of the pope’s pardons, when they let such and

the like sentences slip from them. Nay, and Athanasius was so

confident that it was GOD only could pardon sin, that he brings this

as an argument against the Arians, to prove that CHRIST was GOD,

because he could pardon sin. “But how,” saith he, “if the WORD was a

creature, could he loose the sentence of GOD, and pardon sin?” It

being written by the prophets that this belongs to GOD; for “who is a

GOD like to thee, pardoning sins, and passing by transgressions?” For

GOD said, “Thou art earth, and unto earth thou shalt return.” So that

men are mortal: and how then was it possible that sin should be

pardoned or loosed by creatures? Yet CHRIST loosed and pardoned them.

Certainly had the pope’s pardons been heard of in that age, this would

have been but a weak argument. For Arius might easily have answered,

“It doth not follow, that, because CHRIST could pardon sin, he was

therefore GOD; for the pope is not GOD, and yet he can pardon sin.”

But thus we see the Fathers confidently averring, it is GOD only can

pardon sins, and therefore that the pope cannot pardon them by any

means whatsoever, unless he be GOD, which as yet they do not assert.

And so that the Romish doctrine concerning pardons is a fond thing,

repugnant to the Scriptures.—_Beveridge._

PARISH. A parish is that circuit of ground which is committed to the

charge of one parson or vicar, or other minister having cure of souls

therein. A _reputed parish_ is where there is a parochial chapel, with

all parochial rites entirely independent of the mother-church, as to

sacraments, marriages, burials, repairs, &c. (See _Chapel_.)

The word _parish_ is from the Greek word παροικία, (_paroichia_,) which

signifies _sojourning_, or living _as a stranger_ or inmate; for so it

is used among the classical Greek writers. The Septuagint translate the

Hebrew word ‏גר‎, (_Ger_,) _peregrinus_, by πάροικος, (Gen. xv. 13,

&c.,) and the word ‏מגור‎, (_Magor_,) _peregrinatio_, by παροικία. (Ps.

cxix. 54.)

The primitive Christians received a great part of their customs, and

also their phraseology from the Jews; who, when they travelled abroad,

and many of them were settled in any town, either built them a

synagogue, or else procured a large room, where they performed their

public worship; and all that were strangers in that place met there at

the times of public devotion. This brotherhood of Jews, which was mixed

with the inhabitants of the place, they called the παροικία, or the

_society of the sojourners_. At the beginning of Christianity, the

Christians were in the same condition with the Jews, they being

themselves either Jews, or Jewish proselytes, or living in a retired

condition, sequestered from the world, and little mixing with affairs.

Upon which account St. Peter addresses them ὡς παροικοὺς, &c., _as

strangers and pilgrims_. (1 Pet. ii. 11.) This number of strangers in

the heathen cities was called the παροικία, over which there was set, by

apostolical authority, a bishop, a προεσθώς, a _cazan_, (an inspector,)

or a _rhosh cohel_ (a head of the congregation); all which names denoted

the episcopal authority, and which in little time centred in the one

most usual name, of ἐπίσκοπος, or bishop, as is plainly seen by the

Ignatian epistles. So that the ἐπίσκοπος and παροικία became relative

terms; he that had the superintendency of the congregation, whether one

or more, was called the bishop, and the congregation under his care was

called the παροικία. Hence, in the most early time of the Greek Church,

the word παροικία was used to signify, what we now call a _diocese_; and

thus, in the apostolic canons, a bishop that leaves his diocese

παροικίαν for another is to be reduced to lay-communion. Hence it is

said, “The bishop of the diocese παροικιας of Alexandria departed this

life.” And again, “the glory παροικιας of the diocese of Cæsarea.” The

Latins took up the same way of expression, from the Greek, denoting a

diocese by the word _parochia_, which mode of expression lasted till

after the time of Charlemagne.

But it is to be observed, that when the word _parochia_ signified a

diocese, the word _diocesis_ signified a parish. So in the Council of

Agatha, _presbyter dum diocesin tenet_, “whilst the presbyter is in

possession of his living.” And in the third Council of Orleans,

_diocesis_ is the same with _basilica_, a parish church. But in the

seventh or eighth century, when parish churches began frequently to be

founded in villages, the old names shifted, and _diocesis_ was used to

denote the extent of the bishop’s jurisdiction; and _parochia_, the

place where the presbyter’s care was limited.

That the word παροικία was not exclusively applied to a _parish_, and

that a bishop’s diocese was not anciently confined to a _single_ parish,

as it has been asserted by the advocates for Presbyterianism, see

Maurice’s “Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy,” and Scater’s “Original

Draught of the Primitive Church.”

How ancient the division of parishes is, may at present be difficult to

ascertain; for it seems to be agreed on all hands, that, in the early

ages of Christianity in this island, parishes were unknown, or at least

signified the same that a _diocese_ does now. There was then no

appropriation of ecclesiastical dues to any particular Church; but every

man was at liberty to contribute his tithes to whatever priest or church

he pleased, provided only that he did it to some; or if he made no

special appointment or appropriation thereof, they were paid into the

hands of the bishop, whose duty it was to distribute them among the

clergy, and for other pious purposes, according to his own discretion.

Mr. Camden says, England was divided into parishes by Archbishop

Honorius, about the year 630. Sir Henry Hobart lays it down, that

parishes were first erected by the Council of Lateran, which was held A.

D. 1179. Each widely differing from the other, and both of them perhaps

from the truth; which will probably be found in the medium between the

two extremes: for Mr. Selden has clearly shown, that the clergy lived in

common without any division of parishes, long after the time mentioned

by Camden; and it appears from the Saxon laws, that parishes were in

being long before the date of that Council of Lateran, to which they are

ascribed by Hobart.

Many parish churches were founded in great towns and villages in Italy,

Spain, and France, during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, under

the cathedral church of the bishop; and though they were later in

England, yet there are some instances as early as the year 700: for

about that time Bede relates, that the bishop of Hexham consecrated a

parish church in the manor of one Pach, a Saxon earl, and not long after

for one Addi. Nay, before this he relates of Birinus, first bishop of

the West Saxons, that he built and dedicated several churches in his

diocese of Dorchester. When Egbert, archbishop of York, made his

constitutions, about the year 750, they seem to be growing up apace. By

that canon, “_Unusquisque sacerdos ecclesiam suam cum omni diligentia

ædificet_.”—_Spelman._ And he forbids that the tithes formerly paid to

the mother-church should be paid to the new-built oratories. By the time

of Edward the Confessor these parishes were grown so numerous, that

complaint was made that the clergy were impoverished thereby. After

which time the division of parishes was not much altered; for the survey

of England in Doomsday Book is not very different from our later

ones.—_Nicholls._

Before the establishment of parishes in England, the bishops sent out

their clergy (who lived with them) to preach to the people as occasion

required; but as Christianity extended, and the number of converts

increased, this method became inconvenient, and a resident clergy was

found expedient. Parishes were then formed, and churches were built, and

endowed by lords of manors and others; and hence arose the patronage of

laymen.

The cause of the great difference in the extent of different parishes is

this: that churches were most of them built by lords of the manor for

their tenants; and so the parish was of the size of the lord’s manor.

In 1520, according to a book made out by Cardinal Wolsey, the number of

parish churches is reckoned 9407, but Chamberlain makes them 9913.

Camden reckons 9284. The number of charity briefs issued was according

to an account in Burns’ “Ecclesiastical Law,” 10,489. Formerly

Archdeacon Plymley, in his charge to the clergy of Salop, 1793, says

that, from the “Liber Regis,” there were in England and Wales 5098

rectories, 3687 vicarages, and 2970 churches, neither rectorial nor

vicarial; in all 11,755 churches in the 10,000 parishes. It is scarcely

necessary to add, that both churches and parishes have much increased

since that period.

As to divisions and consolidations of parishes, see 58 Geo. III. c. 45;

59 Geo. III. c. 134; 8 & 9 Vic. c. 70. See also 3 & 4 Vic. c. 60, sec.

6.

PARSON. (_Persona ecclesiæ._) _Parson_ properly signifies the rector of

a parish church, because, during the time of his incumbency, he

represents the Church, and in the eye of the law sustains the _person_

thereof, as well in suing as in being sued, in any action touching the

same. _Parson imparsonee_ (_persona impersonata_) is he that, as lawful

incumbent, is in actual possession of a parish church, and with whom the

church is full, whether it be presentative or impropriate. The word

persona is however applied in ancient documents to others besides

parochial incumbents, that is, to ecclesiastical officers who had a

personal responsibility for the services and duties proper to their

churches. (See _Persona_.)

PARSONAGE. The parson’s residence. It is applicable both to rectories

and to vicarages, and indeed to the official residences of all

incumbents of parishes, parochial districts, or chapelries. As to giving

of lands for parsonages, see 55 Geo. III. c. 147.

PARVISE. A chamber over a church porch. The parvise was most likely

always a kind of _domus inclusa_ for some officer of the church, as, for

instance, the sacristan; and from the frequent occurrence of an altar in

the east window, we may presume that it was sometimes a temporary

lodging for a priest.

PASCH. The festival of Easter.

PASCHAL. Pertaining to the Passover. The lamb offered in this Jewish

festival being a prominent type of CHRIST, the terms _paschal_ and

paschal lamb are often used in application to the REDEEMER. An example

occurs in the proper preface for Easter Day, in the Communion Office,

thus: “Thy SON JESUS CHRIST our LORD, for he is the very _Paschal_ Lamb,

which was offered for us, and hath taken away the sin of the world,” &c.

PASSALORYNCHITES, or PATTALORYNCHIANS. Certain heretics, the followers

of Montanus, who made profession of never speaking, and for that purpose

always held their fingers upon their mouths, grounding it upon certain

words of the 140th Psalm. They began to appear in the second age; and

St. Jerome testifies, that even in his time he found some of them in

Galatia, as he travelled to Ancyra.

PASSING BELL. By the sixth canon it is enjoined, “When any is passing

out of this life, a bell shall be tolled, and the minister shall not

then slack to do his last duty. And after the party’s death (if so it

fall out) there shall be rung no more but one short peal, and one other

before the burial, and one other after the burial.”

PASSION WEEK. So we denominate the week immediately preceding the

festival of _Easter_, because in that week our SAVIOUR’S _passion_ and

death happened.

The primitive Christians called it _Hebdomas Magna_, or the _Great

Week_. No one can better describe it to us than St. Chrysostom, who

says, “It was called the Great Week, not because it consisted of longer

days, or more in number, than other weeks, but because at this time

great things were wrought for us by our LORD. For in this week the

ancient tyranny of the devil was dissolved, death was extinct, the

strong man was bound, his goods were spoiled, sin was abolished, the

curse was destroyed, paradise was opened, heaven became accessible, men

and angels were joined together, the middle wall of partition was broken

down, the barriers were taken out of the way, the GOD of peace made

peace between things in heaven and things in earth; therefore it is

called the _Great Week_. And as this is the head of all other weeks, so

the Great _Sabbath_ is the head of this week. Therefore, in this week,

many increase their labours; some adding to their fastings, others to

their watchings; others give more liberal alms, testifying the greatness

of the Divine goodness by their care of good works, and more intense

piety and holy living. As the Jews went forth to meet CHRIST, when he

had raised Lazarus from the dead, so now not only one city, but all the

world, go forth to meet him, not with palm branches in their hands, but

with alms-deeds, humanity, virtue, fastings, tears, prayers, watchings,

and all kinds of piety, which they offer to CHRIST their LORD. And not

only we, but the emperors of the world, honour this week, making it a

time of vacation from all civil business. The imperial letters are sent

abroad at this time, commanding all prisoners to be set at liberty from

their chains. For, as our LORD, when he descended into hell, set free

those that were detained by death; so the servants, according to their

power, imitating the kindness of their LORD, loose men from their

corporal bonds, when they have no power to relax the spiritual.”

It is plain from hence, that the ancient Christians paid an

extraordinary regard to this Holy Week, and that this consisted in

additional exercises of devotion, longer fastings, more liberal alms,

vacation from all civil business, and a general release of prisoners,

some particular cases of criminals only excepted.

The _Thursday_ in this week, which was the day on which CHRIST was

betrayed, was observed with some peculiar customs. In some churches, the

communion was administered in the evening after supper, in imitation of

the communion of the apostles at our LORD’S last supper. On this day the

_Competentes_, or candidates of baptism, publicly rehearsed the creed

before the bishops or presbyters in the church. And on this day it was

customary for servants to receive the communion. The modern ritualists

call this day _Maundy Thursday_. (See _Maundy Thursday_.)

The _Friday_ was called _Good Friday_, or _Pasch_ of the _Cross_, in

opposition to _Easter_, or the _Pasch_ of the _Resurrection_. On this

day, not only penitents were absolved, but a general absolution and

indulgence was proclaimed to all the people, observing the day with

fasting, prayers, and contrition.

The Saturday of this week was known by the name of the _Great Sabbath_.

It had many peculiarities belonging to it. For this was the only Sabbath

throughout the year that the Greek churches, and some of the Western,

kept as a fast; all other Saturdays, or Sabbaths, being observed as

festivals. On this day they continued to fast, not only till evening,

but till cock-crowing in the morning, which was the supposed time of our

SAVIOUR’S resurrection. And the preceding time of the night was spent in

Divine service, praying, preaching, and baptizing such of the

catechumens as presented themselves. A remnant of which custom seems

still to be kept up in the Latin offices, which prescribe the reading of

numerous chapters from the Holy Scriptures, called prophecies, with

prayers, &c. interspersed. Eusebius tells us that, in the time of

Constantine, this vigil was kept with great pomp. For that emperor set

up lofty pillars of wax, to burn as torches all over the city, so that

the night seemed to outshine the sun at noonday. The fifth Sunday in

Lent is called in the Roman office, Passion Sunday, that name being

applied to it in reference to our LORD’S prediction on that day of his

approaching passion. And some persons call the week, of which Passion

Sunday is the first day, Passion Week; and the real Passion Week they

call Holy Week. This is, however, a piece of pedantry, founded on a

mistake.

PASSOVER. (_Pesach_, Heb., which signifies _a leap_, _a passage_.)

(_Pascha_, in the LXX.) The Passover was a solemn festival of the Jews,

instituted in commemoration of their coming out of Egypt, because the

night before their departure the destroying angel, that slew the

first-born of the Egyptians, passed over the houses of the Hebrews

without entering them, because they were marked with the blood of the

lamb, which for this reason was called the paschal lamb.

PASTOR. Literally, a shepherd; figuratively, the bishop of a diocese, or

the priest of a parish, whose people are, likewise, figuratively called

their flock. It is employed in this sense in one of the prayers for the

Ember Week, and in the Ordination Services.

PASTORAL STAFF. (See _Crosier_.) It is mentioned in one of the rubrics

of King Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, which is still the law of the

Church, according to the present rubric as to the “ornament of the

Church,” which prescribes that the bishop shall in his public

ministrations, besides his proper vestments, have “his pastoral staff in

his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain.”

PATEN. The plate on which the sacred bread in the eucharist is laid. The

original word signifies a wide open dish. It occurs in our Communion

Office, at consecration, “here the priest is to take the _paten_ into

his hands.”

PATRIARCHS. (From the Greek πατριὰ, _family_, and ἄρχων, _head_ or

_ruler_.) Patriarchs among Christians are ecclesiastical dignitaries, or

bishops, so called from their _paternal authority_ in the Church.

In the ancient Christian Church, patriarchs were next in order to

metropolitans or primates. They were originally styled archbishops, and

exarchs of a diocese. For the name archbishop was anciently a more

extensive title than now, and scarce given to any but those whose

jurisdiction extended over a whole imperial diocese, as the bishops of

Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. After the setting up the patriarchal

power, the name archbishop was appropriated to the patriarchs.

The first time we meet with the name patriarch given to any bishop by

public authority of the Church, is in the Council of Chalcedon, which

mentions the most holy _patriarchs_, particularly Leo, patriarch of

great Rome. Among private authors, the first who mentions patriarchs by

name is Socrates, who wrote his history about the year 440, eleven years

before the Council of Chalcedon. But though we cannot trace the name any

higher, yet the power itself was much earlier. The Romanists carry it up

to the time of the apostles. Others fix it to a little before the

Council of Nice. Others ascribe its rise to that very council. In a

matter so obscure, and so variously controverted among learned men, it

is no easy matter to determine where the right lies. But, however it be,

the fourth century affords pregnant proofs of the establishment and

growth of the patriarchal power.

The power of patriarchs was not one and the same precisely in all

churches, but differed according to the different customs of places and

countries, or the pleasure of kings or councils. The patriarch of

Constantinople grew to be a patriarch over the patriarchs of Ephesus and

Cæsarea. And the patriarch of Alexandria had some prerogatives which no

other patriarchs besides himself enjoyed. Such was the right of

consecrating and approving every single bishop under his jurisdiction.

The general privileges of the patriarchate were these following:—First,

the patriarchs ordained all the metropolitans under them; but they

themselves were to be ordained by a diocesan synod. Secondly, they had

the power of convening all their metropolitans and provincial bishops to

a diocesan synod. Thirdly, they had the privilege of receiving appeals

from metropolitans and provincial synods, and reversing their decrees.

In the fourth place, they might inquire into the administration of

metropolitans, and censure them in case of heresy or misdemeanour. By

virtue of this power, Chrysostom deposed Gerontius, bishop of Nicomedia.

Fifthly, a patriarch had power to delegate, or send a metropolitan into

any part of his diocese, as his commissioner, to hear and determine

ecclesiastical causes in his name. Sixthly, the metropolitans did

nothing of moment without consulting the patriarchs. Seventhly, it was

the patriarch’s office to publish both ecclesiastical and civil laws,

which concerned the Church. The last privilege of patriarchs was, that

they were all co-ordinate and independent of one another. After ages, it

is true, made great alteration in this matter.

Learned men reckon up thirteen patriarchs in those early ages, that is,

one in every capital city of each diocese in the Romish empire. The

patriarchs were as follows:—

The patriarchs of Antioch and Ephesus, in Asia.

The patriarch of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia.

The patriarch of Thessalonica, in Macedonia.

The patriarch of Sirmium, in Illyricum.

The patriarchs of Rome and Milan, in Italy.

The patriarchs of Alexandria and Carthage, in Egypt.

The patriarch of Lyons, in France.

The patriarch of Toledo, in Spain.

The patriarch of York, in Britain.

The patriarch of Constantinople, styled the _Œcumenical, or Universal

Patriarch_.

All these were independent of one another, till Rome by encroachment,

and Constantinople by law, gained a superiority over some of the rest.

The subordinate patriarchs, nevertheless, still retained the title of

_exarchs_ of the diocese, and continued to sit and vote in councils.

The title of patriarch is still kept up in the Greek Church; the supreme

head of which is the patriarch of Constantinople, who pays a large sum

(sometimes ten, sometimes twenty, thousand crowns) to the Grand Seignor,

for his instalment. His revenue amounts to near forty thousand crowns a

year, arising from the sale of bishoprics and other benefices; besides

that every priest in Constantinople pays him a crown per annum. There

are about 150 bishops and archbishops dependent on this patriarch.

After the patriarch of Constantinople, the richest is the patriarch of

Jerusalem. The patriarch of Antioch is the poorest of them all. The

patriarch of Alexandria is very powerful: he assumes the title of Grand

Judge of the whole world. But what distinguishes him more than all the

rest from the patriarch of Constantinople is, his being less exposed to

the avarice and resentments of the Turks.

The patriarch of Constantinople is elected by the archbishops and

bishops, with the consent and approbation of the Grand Seignor, who

presents the new patriarch with a white horse, a black capuch, a

crosier, and an embroidered caftan. The bishop of Heraclea, as chief

archbishop, has a right to consecrate him. This prelate, dressed in

pontifical robes, conducts the patriarch to his throne, and vests him

with the cross, mitre, and other ornaments. He is attended to the church

by some of the officers of the Porte, who read over his letters patent

at the church door, with a strict charge to the people to own him as

their head, to maintain him suitably to his dignity, and to pay his

debts, under penalty of bastinado and confiscation of their effects.

The Jews had their patriarchs, who were governors set up upon the

destruction of Jerusalem. One of these had his residence at Tiberias,

and another at Babylon; who were the heads of the Jews dispersed

throughout the Roman and Persian empires. They continued in great power

and dignity till the latter end of the fourth century, about which time

the order ceased.

PATRIMONY. A name anciently given to church estates, or revenues. Thus

we find mentioned, in the letters of St. Gregory, not only the patrimony

of the Roman Church, but those likewise of the Churches of Rimini,

Milan, and Ravenna. This name, therefore, does not peculiarly signify

any sovereign dominion or jurisdiction, belonging to the Roman Church,

or the pope.

Churches, in cities whose inhabitants were but of modern subsistence,

had no estates left to them out of their own district: but those in

imperial cities, such as Rome, Ravenna, and Milan, where senators, and

persons of the first rank, inhabited, were endowed with estates in

divers parts of the world. St. Gregory mentions the patrimony of the

Church of Ravenna in Sicily, and another of the Church of Milan in that

kingdom. The Roman Church had patrimonies in France, Africa, Sicily, in

the Cottian Alps, and in many other countries. The same St. Gregory had

a lawsuit with the bishop of Ravenna for the patrimonies of the two

Churches, which afterwards ended by agreement.

PATRIPASSIANS. (_A patre passo._) A denomination that arose in the

second century. Praxeas, a man of genius and learning, denied any real

distinction between the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, and maintained that

the FATHER, sole Creator of all things, had united to himself the human

nature of CHRIST. Hence his followers were called Monarchians, because

of their denying a plurality of persons in the Deity; and also

Patripassians, because they believed that the FATHER was so intimately

united with the man CHRIST, his SON, that he suffered with him the

anguish of an afflicted life, and the torments of an ignominious death.

It does not appear that this sect formed to itself any separate place of

worship, or removed from the ordinary assemblies of Christians.

PATRON. The person who has the right to present to a benefice. The

greatest part of the benefices in England are presentative; the thanes

or lords, who built and endowed churches, having first agreed with the

bishops that they should have the privilege of presenting fit clerks to

serve and receive the profits of the churches founded by them; which

right is continued to their posterity, and those who have purchased of

them. See the 14 & 15 Vic. c. 97, for a new legislative right of

patronage to builders and endowers of new churches.

PAUL, ST., THE CONVERSION OF. A festival of the Christian Church,

observed on the twenty-fifth of January.

The Church chooses to commemorate St. Paul by his Conversion, because,

as it was wonderful in itself, and a miraculous effect of the powerful

grace of GOD, so was it highly beneficial to the Church of CHRIST: for,

while the other apostles had their particular provinces, he had the care

of all the Churches, and by his indefatigable labours contributed very

much to the propagation of the gospel throughout the world.

It is remarkable of this great apostle of the Gentiles, that, after his

conversion, he changed his name, being called before Saul, a name famous

among the tribe of Benjamin (to which he belonged) ever since the first

king of Israel, Saul, was chosen out of that tribe. The name Paul, which

he afterwards assumed, related to the Roman corporation where he was

born; though some have thought it was in memory of his converting

Sergius Paulus, the Roman governor.

Among other reasons which may be assigned for the miraculous conversion

of St. Paul, the most considerable seems to be, that this might add the

greater weight and authority to his preaching; which was necessary,

considering the great share he was to have in planting Christianity in

the world. Add to this, that St. Paul appears to have had a very honest

mind, and to have been influenced with a regard only to what he thought

truth; but being prejudiced by education, and pushed on by the heat of

his natural temper, was transported with furious zeal; and therefore GOD

was pleased to “show mercy to him,” because what he did was done

“ignorantly, in unbelief;” and in a miraculous manner to convince him of

the truth of that religion which he persecuted.

PAUL’S, ST., CROSS. (See _Cross_.)

PAULIANISTS. The Paulianists derive their name from Paulus Samosatensis,

who was elected bishop of Antioch, A. D. 260. He maintained, amongst

other errors, that our LORD was a mere man, and had not come down from

heaven. He was condemned and deposed by a council at Antioch, A. D. 272.

One of the canons of Nice required the Paulianists to be rebaptized,

because in baptizing they did not use the only lawful form according to

our SAVIOUR’S command.

PAULICIANS. Heretics in the seventh century, disciples of Constantine, a

native of Armenia, and a favourer of the errors of Manes.

As the name of Manicheans was become odious to all nations, he gave

those of his sect the title of Paulicians, on pretence that they

followed only the doctrine of St. Paul.

One of their most detestable maxims was, not to give alms to the poor,

that they might not contribute to the support of creatures who were the

work of the bad god.

The sect of the Paulicians did not spread much till the reign of the

emperor Nicephorus, who began to reign in 801. The protection of this

prince drew great numbers to their party. But the empress Theodora,

regent during the minority of Michel, published an edict, obliging them

to follow the Catholic faith, or to depart out of the empire. Many of

them chose rather to suffer death than to obey; and several, who lay

concealed, afterwards took up arms against the emperor Basil, the

Macedonian.

PAX. A small tablet of silver, or some fit material, often very

elaborately ornamented, by means of which the kiss of peace was, in the

mediæval Church, circulated through the congregation. It was introduced

when the primitive kiss of peace, which used to circulate throughout the

Christian assemblies, was discontinued on account of some appearance of

scandal which had grown out of it. In the place of this, a small tablet

of silver or ivory, or some appropriate material, having first received

the kiss of the priest, was presented by him to the deacon, and by him

again to the people, by all of whom it was kissed in order; thus

receiving and transmitting from each to all the symbol of Christian love

and unity, without any possibility of offence.

In the Syrian churches, the following seems to be the way in which the

same thing is symbolized. In a part of the prayers, which has a

reference to the birth of CHRIST, on pronouncing the words “Peace on

earth, good will towards men,” the attending ministers take the

officiating priest’s right hand between both their hands, and so pass

_the peace_ to the congregation, each of whom takes his neighbour’s

right hand, and salutes him with the word _peace_. In the Romish Church

the Pax is still used. By the Church of England it was omitted at the

Reformation as a useless ceremony. Though the _pax_ as an ornament is

found among the ornaments of the altar, preserved in many churches after

the Reformation.—See _Hiereugia Anglicana_.

PAX VOBISCUM. (_Lat._) In English, “Peace be with you.” A form of

salutation frequently made use of in the offices of the ancient

Christian Church.

First, It was usual for the bishop to salute the people, in this form,

at his first entrance into the church. This is often mentioned by St.

Chrysostom, who derives it from apostolical practice.

Secondly, The reader began the reading of the lessons with this form.

St. Cyprian plainly alludes to this, when, speaking of a new reader,

whom he had ordained to that office, he says, _Auspicatus est Pacem, dum

dedicat lectionem_; he began to use the salutation, _Peace be with you_,

when he first began to read. The third Council of Carthage took away

this privilege from the readers, and gave it to the deacons, or other

superior ministers of the church.

Thirdly, In many places, the sermon was introduced with this form of

salutation, and often ended with it.

Fourthly, It was always used at the consecration of the eucharist: and,

Lastly, At the dismission of the congregation. And, whenever it was said

by the officiating minister, the people always answered, _And with thy

spirit_.

St. Chrysostom lays open the original intent and design of this

practice. For he says, it was an ancient custom in the apostles’ days,

when the rulers of the Church had the gift of inspiration, for the

people to say to the preacher, _Peace be with thy spirit_; acknowledging

thereby that they were under the guidance and direction of the Spirit of

GOD.

In our own liturgy we use an equivalent salutation, namely. _The Lord be

with you_; to which the people answer, (as the primitive Christians

did,) _And with thy spirit_. It occurs but twice in our Prayer Book, i.

e. after the Creed at Morning and Evening Prayer. In the First Book of

King Edward it followed the versicles, immediately preceding the collect

for the day: besides being used more than once in other offices.

PECULIARS. Those parishes and places are called peculiars, which are

exempted from the jurisdiction of the proper ordinary of the diocese

where they lie. These exempt jurisdictions are so called, not because

they are under no ordinary, but because they are not under the ordinary

of the diocese, but have one of their own. They are a remnant of Popery.

The pope, before the Reformation, by a usurped authority, in defiance of

the canons of the Church, exempted them from the jurisdiction of the

bishop of the diocese. At the Reformation, by an oversight, they were

not restored to the jurisdiction of the diocesan, but remained under the

sovereign, or under such other person, as by custom or purchase obtained

the right of superintendence.

The act 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 77, which constituted the ecclesiastical

commission, empowered the commissioners “to propose those parishes,

churches, or chapelries which are locally situate in any diocese, but

subject to any peculiar jurisdiction, other than the jurisdiction of the

bishop of the diocese in which the same are locally situate, shall be

only subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese within

which such parishes, churches, or chapelries are locally situate.”

(Sect. 10.) In consequence of recommendations by the commissioners,

peculiars have been abolished in most, if not all, dioceses of England.

PELAGIANS. Heretics who first appeared about the latter end of the

fourth, or beginning of the fifth, century.

Pelagius, author of this sect, was a Briton, being born in Wales. His

name, in the British language, was Morgan, which signifies sea-born;

from whence he had his Latin name Pelagius. He is said to have been a

monk by profession; but probably was no otherwise such than as those

were so called who led stricter lives than others within their own

houses. Some of our ancient historians pretend that he was abbot of

Bangor. But this is not likely, because the British monasteries

(according to a learned author) were of a later date. St. Augustine

gives him the character of a very pious man, and a Christian of no

vulgar rank. According to the same father, he travelled to Rome, where

he associated himself with persons of the greatest learning and figure.

Here he instructed several young persons, particularly Cœlestius and

Julianus; as also Timasius and Jacobus, who afterwards renounced his

doctrine, and applied themselves to St. Augustine. During this time he

wrote his “Commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles,” and his Letters to

Melania and Demetrias.

Pelagius, being charged with heresy, left Rome, and went into Africa,

where he was present at the famous conference held at Carthage, between

the Catholics and Donatists. From Carthage he travelled into Egypt, and

at last went to Jerusalem, where he settled. He was accused before the

Council of Diospolis in Palestine, where he recanted his opinions; but

relapsing, and discovering the insincerity of his recantation, he was

afterwards condemned by several councils in Africa, and by a synod at

Antioch. Pelagius died somewhere in the East, but where is uncertain.

His principal tenets, as we find them charged upon his disciple

Cœlestius by the Church of Carthage, were these:

I. That Adam was by nature mortal, and, whether he had sinned or not,

would certainly have died.

II. That the consequences of Adam’s sin were confined to his person, and

the rest of mankind received no disadvantage thereby.

III. That the law qualified men for the kingdom of heaven, and was

founded upon equal promises with the gospel.

IV. That, before the coming of our SAVIOUR, some men lived without sin.

V. That new-born infants are in the same condition with Adam before his

fall.

VI. That the general resurrection of the dead does not follow in virtue

of our SAVIOUR’S resurrection.

VII. That a man may keep the commands of GOD without difficulty, and

preserve himself in a perfect state of innocence.

VIII. That rich men cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, unless they

part with all their estate.

IX. That the grace of GOD is not granted for the performance of every

moral act; the liberty of the will, and information in points of duty,

being sufficient for this purpose.

X. That the grace of GOD is given in proportion to our merits.

XI. That none can be called the sons of GOD, but those who are perfectly

free from sin.

XII. That our victory over temptation is not gained by GOD’S assistance,

but by the liberty of the will.

The heresy of Pelagius, notwithstanding its condemnation, made its way

into Britain, where its author was born; being conveyed thither by one

Agricola, the son of Severianus, a Pelagian bishop of Gaul. The orthodox

party were very diligent in opposing its progress, and for that purpose

requested the Gallican bishops to send over some persons of eminence to

manage the contest. Those chosen for this purpose were Germanus, bishop

of Auxerre, and Lupus, bishop of Troyes; who, arriving in Britain, held

a famous conference with the Pelagians at St. Alban’s, in which the

latter were put to silence, and the people gave sentence, by their

acclamations, for Germanus and Lupus. The Pelagian error respecting

original sin is noticed in our ninth Article.

PENANCE. (_Pœnitentia_, Latin.) As repentance is the principle and

inward feeling of sorrow for sin, which we are determined to forsake, so

penance is the outward profession of that sorrow. An account of penance

in the primitive Church may be seen in Bingham, and more concisely in

Coleman, from whom we shall quote in this article. Penance, in the

Christian Church, is an imitation of the discipline of the Jewish

synagogue; or, rather, it is a continuation of the same institution.

Excommunication in the Christian Church is essentially the same as

expulsion from the synagogue of the Jews; and the penances of the

offender, required for his restoration to his former condition, were not

materially different in the Jewish and Christian Churches. The principal

point of distinction consisted in this, that the sentence of

excommunication affected the civil relations of the offender under the

Jewish economy; but in the Christian Church it affected only his

relations to that body. Neither the spirit of the primitive institutions

of the Church, nor its situation, nor constitution in the first three

centuries, was at all compatible with the intermingling or confounding

of civil and religious privileges or penalties.

The act of excommunication was, at first, an exclusion of the offender

from the LORD’S supper, and from the _agapæ_. The term itself implies

separation from the communion. The practice was derived from the

injunction of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 11, “With such an one no not _to

eat_.” From the context, and from 1 Cor. x. 16–18; xi. 20–34, it clearly

appears that the apostle refers, not to common meals, and the ordinary

intercourse of life, but to these religious festivals.

Examples of penitence or repentance occur in the Old Testament; neither

are there wanting instances, not merely of individuals, but of a whole

city or people, performing certain acts of penance,—fasting, mourning,

&c. (Nehem. ix. and Jonah iii.) But these acts of humiliation were

essentially different, in their relations to individuals, from Christian

penance.

We have, however, in the New Testament, an instance of the

excommunication of an offending member, and of his restoration to the

fellowship of the Church by penance, agreeably to the authority of St.

Paul, 1 Cor. v. 1–8; 2 Cor. ii. 5–11. This sentence of exclusion from

the Church was pronounced _by the assembled body_, and in the name of

the LORD JESUS CHRIST. By this sentence, the offender was separated from

the people of the LORD, with whom he had been joined by baptism, and was

reduced to his former condition as a heathen man, subject to the power

of Satan, and of evil spirits. This is, perhaps, the true import of

delivering such an one up to Satan.

A similar act of excommunication is described briefly in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,

“If any man love not the LORD JESUS CHRIST, let him be anathema

maranatha.” The μαράν ἀθὰ corresponds, in sense, with the Hebrew ‏חרם‎,

and denotes a thing devoted to utter destruction; (which, however, is by

some supposed to be the Syro-Chaldaic ‏מרנא אתה‎, expressed in the Greek

character, meaning, “The Lord cometh.”) (See _Maranatha_.) The whole

sentence implies that the Church leaves the subject of it to the LORD,

who cometh to execute judgment upon him. All that the apostle requires

of the Corinthians is, that they should exclude him from their communion

and fellowship; so that he should no longer be regarded as one of their

body. He pronounces no further judgment upon the offender, but leaves

him to the judgment of GOD. “What have I to do to judge them that are

without?” (ver. 12,) i. e. those who are not Christians, to which class

the excommunicated person would belong. “Do not ye judge them that are

within?” i. e. full members of the Church. But them that are without GOD

judgeth; or rather _will judge_, κρινεῖ, as the reading should be. It

appears from 2 Cor. ii. 1–11, that the Church had not restored such to

the privileges of communion, but were willing to do so; and that the

apostle very gladly authorized the measure.

It is important to remark that, in the primitive Church, penance related

only to such as had been excluded from the communion of the Church. Its

immediate object was, not the forgiveness of the offender by the LORD

GOD, but his reconciliation with the Church. It could, therefore, relate

only to open and scandalous offences. _De occultis non judicat

ecclesia_—the Church takes no cognizance of secret sins—was an ancient

maxim of the Church. The early Fathers say expressly, that the Church

offers pardon only for offences committed against her. The forgiveness

of all sin she refers to GOD himself. _Omnia autem_, says Cyprian, Ep.

55, _remisimus Deo omnipotenti, in cujus potestate sunt omnia

reservata_. Such are the concurring sentiments of most of the early

writers on this subject. It was reserved for a later age to confound

these important distinctions, and to arrogate to the Church the

prerogative of forgiving sins.

The readmission of penitents into the Church was the subject of frequent

controversy with the early Fathers, and ancient religious sects. Some

contended that those who had once been excluded from the Church for

their crimes, ought never again to be received to her fellowship and

communion. But the Church generally were disposed to exercise a more

charitable and forgiving spirit.

PENANCE. In the law of England, penance is an ecclesiastical punishment

or penalty, used in the discipline of the Church of England, by which an

offender is obliged to give a public satisfaction to the Church for

scandal done by his evil example. For small offences and scandals, a

public satisfaction or penance is required to be made before the

minister, churchwardens, and some of the parishioners, as the

ecclesiastical judge shall think fit to decree. These penances may be

moderated at the discretion of the judge, or commuted for money to be

devoted to pious uses. In the case of incest or incontinency the

offender is sometimes enjoined to do public penance in the cathedral,

the parish church, or the market-place, bare-legged, bare-headed, and in

a white sheet, and to make open confession of his crime in a form of

words prescribed by the judge. This sort of punishment, however, being

contrary to the spirit of the age, and the profligate being found to

make parties to abet the offender, it has fallen into desuetude.

PENANCE, THE SACRAMENT OF. The Romanists define penance a sacrament,

wherein a person, who has the requisite dispositions, receives

absolution at the hands of the priest, of all sins committed since

baptism. (See _Auricular Confession_, _Satisfaction_, _Purgatory_,

_Absolution_.)

The Council of Trent (sess. 14, can. 1) has expressly decreed, that

every one is accursed who shall affirm that penance is not truly and

properly a sacrament instituted by CHRIST in the universal Church, for

reconciling those Christians to the Divine majesty who have fallen into

sin after baptism; and this sacrament, it is declared, consists of two

parts—the matter and the form: the matter is the act of the penitent,

including contrition, confession, and satisfaction; the form of it is

the act of absolution on the part of the priest. Accordingly it is

enjoined, that it is the duty of every man, who hath fallen after

baptism, to confess his sins once a year, at least, to a priest; that

this confession is to be secret; for public confession is neither

commanded nor expedient; and that it must be exact and particular,

including every kind and act of sin, with all the circumstances

attending it. When the penitent has so done, the priest pronounces an

absolution, which is not conditional or declarative only, but absolute

and judicial. This secret or auricular confession was first decreed and

established in the fourth Council of Lateran, under Innocent III., in

1215 (cap. 21). And the decree of this council was afterwards confirmed

and enlarged in the Council of Florence, and in that of Trent, which

ordains that confession was instituted by CHRIST; that, by the law of

GOD, it is necessary to salvation, and that it has always been practised

in the Christian Church. As for the penances imposed on the penitent by

way of satisfaction, they have been commonly the repetition of certain

forms of devotion, as Paternosters or Ave-Marias, the payment of

stipulated sums, pilgrimages, fasts, or various species of corporeal

discipline. But the most formidable penance, in the estimation of many

who have belonged to the Roman communion, has been the temporary pains

of purgatory. But, under all the penalties which are inflicted or

threatened in the Romish Church, it has provided relief by its

indulgences, and by its prayers or masses for the dead, performed

professedly for relieving and rescuing the souls that are detained in

purgatory.

The reader need scarcely be reminded how entirely opposed all this is to

the doctrine of the Church of England. The Church of Rome affirms

“penance” to be a “sacrament,” instituted by CHRIST himself, and secret

“confession” to be one of its constituent parts, instituted by the

Divine law; and she anathematizes those who contradict her:—the Church

of England denies “penance” to be a sacrament of the gospel; affirms it

to have “grown of the corrupt following of the apostles;” and “not to

have” the proper “nature of a sacrament,” as “not having any visible

sign or ceremony ordained of GOD;” and of course denies the sacramental

character of “confession.” The Church of Rome pronounces, that, by the

Divine law, “all persons” must confess their sins to the priest:—the

Church of England limits her provisions for confession to “sick

persons.” The Church of Rome pronounces that all persons are “bound” to

confess:—the Church of England directs, that the sick “be moved” to make

confession. The Church of Rome insists upon a confession of “all sins

whatsoever:”—the Church of England recommends “a special confession of

sins,” if the sick person “feel his conscience troubled with any weighty

matter.” The Church of Rome represents penance as instituted for

reconciling penitents to GOD “as often as they fall into sin after

baptism;” and imposes confession “once a year:”—the Church of England

advises it on a peculiar occasion. And the purpose of the Church of

England in so advising it evidently is the special relief of a troubled

conscience: whereas the Church of Rome pronounces it to be “necessary to

forgiveness of sin and to salvation;” and denounces with an anathema

“any one who shall say, that confession is only useful for the

instruction and consolation of the penitent.” And let it be observed, in

the first place, that as the Church of England, in her Commination

Service, speaks of the ancient ordinance of _open penance_ as “a

discipline” the restoration of which is “much to be wished,” she hereby

recognises the ancient systems essentially different from that of Rome:

namely, _a public_ expression of sorrow and repentance, to satisfy the

congregation, scandalized by the offence; not as a private purchase of

indemnity to the individual: and, in the next place, when she uses the

word _penance_, in the second exhortation in the same service, “Seeking

to bring forth worthy fruits of penance,” she but quotes the words of

John the Baptist, (St. Luke iii. 8,) and thus identifies _penance_ with

_repentance_, μετάνοια, that is, change of mind or heart. So that the

outward penance is the mere outward symbol of the inward repentance.

PENITENTIAL. A collection of canons in the Romish Church, which

appointed the time and manner of penance to be regularly imposed for

every sin, and forms of prayer that were to be used for the receiving of

those who entered into penance, and reconciling penitents by solemn

absolution; a method chiefly introduced in the time of the degeneracy of

the Church.

PENITENTIAL PSALMS. (See _Psalms_.)

PENITENTIARIES, in the ancient Christian Church, were certain

presbyters, or priests, appointed in every church, to receive the

private confessions of the people; not in prejudice to the public

discipline, nor with a power of granting absolution before any penance

was performed, but to facilitate the exercise of public discipline, by

acquainting men what sins the laws of the Church required to be expiated

by public penance, and by directing them in the performance of it; and

only to appoint private penance for such private crimes as were not

proper to be publicly censured, either for fear of doing harm to the

penitent himself, or giving scandal to the Church.

The office of penitentiary priests was abrogated by Nectarius, bishop of

Constantinople, in the reign of Theodosius, upon a certain accident that

happened in the church. A gentlewoman, coming to the penitentiary, made

a confession of the sins she had committed since her baptism. The

penitentiary enjoined her to fast and pray. Soon after she came again,

and confessed that, during the course of her penance, one of the deacons

of the Church had defiled her. This occasioned the deacon to be cast out

of the Church, and gave great offence to the people. Whereupon the

bishop, by the advice of a presbyter named Eudæmon, took away the

penitentiary’s office, leaving every one to his own conscience; this

being the only way to free the Church from reproach.—_Bingham._

Nectarius’s example was followed by all the bishops of the East, who

took away their penitentiaries. However, the office continued in use in

the Western Churches, and chiefly at Rome. A dignitary in many of the

foreign cathedrals is so called.

PENITENTS. (See _Penance_.) Penance in the primitive Church, as Coleman

from Augusti remarks, was wholly a voluntary act on the part of those

who were subject to it. The Church not only would not enforce it, but

they refused even to urge or invite any to submit to this discipline. It

was to be sought as a favour, not inflicted as a penalty. But the

offending person had no authority or permission to prescribe his own

duties as a penitent. When once he had resolved to seek the forgiveness

and reconciliation of the Church, it was exclusively the prerogative of

that body to prescribe the conditions on which this was to be effected.

No one could even be received as a candidate for penance, without

permission first obtained of the bishop, or presiding elder.

The duties required of penitents consisted essentially in the following

particulars:

1. Penitents of the first three classes were required to kneel in

worship, whilst the faithful were permitted to stand.

2. All were required to make known their penitential sorrow by an open

and public confession of their sin. This confession was to be made, not

before the bishop or the priesthood, but in the presence of the whole

Church, with sighs, and tears, and lamentations. These expressions of

grief they were to renew and continue so long as they remained in the

first or lowest class of penitents, entreating at the same time, in

their behalf, the prayers and intercessions of the faithful. Some idea

of the nature of these demonstrations of penitence may be formed from a

record of them contained in the works of Cyprian. Almost all the canons

lay much stress upon the sighs and tears accompanying these effusions.

3. Throughout the whole term of penance, all expressions of joy were to

be restrained, and all ornaments of dress to be laid aside. The

penitents were required, literally, to wear sackcloth, and to cover

their heads with ashes. Nor were these acts of humiliation restricted to

Ash Wednesday merely, but then especially they were required.

4. The men were required to cut short their hair, and to shave their

beards, in token of sorrow. The women were to appear with dishevelled

hair, and wearing a peculiar kind of veil.

5. During the whole term of penance, bathing, feasting, and sensual

gratifications, allowable at other times, were prohibited. In the spirit

of these regulations, marriage was also forbidden.

6. Besides these restrictions and rules of a negative character, there

were certain positive requirements with which the penitents were

expected to comply.

They were obliged to be present, and to perform their part, at every

religious assembly, whether public or private; a regulation which

neither believers nor catechumens were required to observe.

They were expected to abound in deeds of charity and benevolence,

particularly in almsgiving to the poor.

Especially were they to perform the duties of the _parabolani_, in

giving attendance upon the sick, and in taking care of them. These

offices of kindness they were expected particularly to bestow upon such

as were affected with contagious diseases.

It was also their duty to assist at the burial of the dead. The

regulations last mentioned are supposed to have been peculiar to the

Church of Africa.

These duties and regulations collectively were sometimes included under

the general term εξομολόγησις, _confession_. By this was understood not

only words, but works; both, in connexion, being the appropriate means

of manifesting sorrow for sin, and the purpose of amendment.

PENITENTS IN POPISH COUNTRIES. There are, in Popish countries,

particularly in Italy, several fraternities (as they are called) of

penitents, distinguished by the different shape and colour of their

habits. These are secular societies, who have their rules, statutes, and

churches; and make public processions under their particular cross or

banner. Of these there are more than a hundred; the most considerable of

which are as follows:—

I. White Penitents. These are of different sorts at Rome. The most

ancient is that of Gonfalon, instituted in 1264, in the church of St.

Mary Major: in imitation of which four others were established in the

church of Ara-Cœli; the first under the title of the Nativity of our

LORD; the second under the invocation of the Holy Virgin; the third

under the protection of the Holy Innocents; and the fourth under the

patronage of St. Helena. The brethren of this fraternity, every year,

give portions to a certain number of young girls, in order to their

being married. Their habit is a kind of white sackcloth, and on the

shoulder is a circle, in the middle of which is a red and white cross.

II. Black Penitents. The most considerable of these are the Brethren of

Mercy, or St. John Baptist. This fraternity was instituted in 1488, by

some Florentines, in order to assist criminals at the time of their

death, and during their imprisonment. On the day of execution, they walk

in procession before them, singing the seven Penitential Psalms, and the

Litanies; and, after they are dead, they take them down from the gibbet,

and bury them. Their habit is black sackcloth. There are others whose

business is to bury such persons as are found dead in the streets. They

wear a death’s head on one side of their habit.

III. Blue Penitents. All these are remarkable only for the different

colours of their habits.

IV. Grey Penitents. „

V. Red Penitents. „

VI. Green Penitents. „

VII. Violet Penitents. „

The Church of Rome wrongly renders our word _repentance_ by _penance_,

penance being an attendant on repentance: and she has erred in making

penance a sacrament in the same sense as baptism and the LORD’S supper.

This our Church condemns, but she speaks of the ancient discipline of

the Church in a manner which greatly shocks ultra-Protestants. We allude

to the following address in the Commination Service:—“Brethren, in the

Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, and, at the beginning of

Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin _were put to open

penance_, and punished in this world, _that their souls might be saved

in_ the day of the LORD; and that others, admonished by their example,

might be the more afraid to offend. Instead whereof (until the said

discipline may be restored again, which is much to be wished) it is

thought good, that at this time (in the presence of you all) should be

read the general sentences of GOD’S cursing against impenitent sinners,

gathered out of the seven and twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, and

other places of Scripture; and that ye should answer to every sentence,

_Amen_: to the intent that, being admonished of the great indignation of

GOD against sinners, ye may the rather be moved to earnest and true

repentance, and may walk more warily in these dangerous days, fleeing

from such vices, for which ye affirm with your own mouths the curse of

GOD to be due. (See _Penance_.)

PENTATEUCH, from two Greek words, signifying _five books_. It is the

general or collective designation of the five books of Moses. The

Samaritan Pentateuch, discovered and brought to England in the 17th

century, by the instrumentality of Archbishop Usher and others, is the

Hebrew Pentateuch written in the ancient Hebrew letters. It is supposed

by many learned men to be the actual text of the Scriptures used by the

Samaritans, when at their petition, Shalmaneser, king of Assyria,

appointed one of the Jewish priests to dwell at Bethel and teach them

how they should fear the LORD. (2 Kings xvii. 28.) The copy of the

Scriptures then said to be brought by this priest, contained the _canon

of Scripture_, as it then existed; and the Samaritans never recognised

any other. By several critics the text is supposed more correct than the

Hebrew; and as an element of biblical criticism it is invaluable.

PENTECOST. (From Πεντηκοστὸς, _the fiftieth_.) A solemn festival of the

Jews, so called because it was celebrated fifty days after the feast of

the Passover. (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16.) It corresponds with the Christian

Whitsuntide, which is sometimes called by the same name.

PENTECOSTALS. These were oblations made by the parishioners to their

priest at the feast of Pentecost, which are sometimes called

Whitsun-farthings; but they were not at first offered to their priests,

but to the mother-church; and this may be the reason that the deans and

prebendaries in some cathedrals are entitled to receive these oblations,

and in some places the bishop and archdeacons, as at Gloucester.

PERAMBULATION. Perambulations, for ascertaining the boundaries of

parishes, are to be made by the minister, churchwardens, and

parishioners, by going round the same once a year, in or about Ascension

week. The parishioners may justify going over any man’s land in their

perambulations, according to usage; and it is said may abate all

nuisances in their way. There is a homily appointed to be used before

this ceremony, and Queen Elizabeth’s injunctions appointed the 103rd and

104th Psalms to be said in the course of the perambulation. (See

_Rogation Days_.) The perambulations are still kept up in several

parishes; but have lost their religious character. However, they have

been observed religiously within the memory of some old persons in

distant parts of England.

PERNOCTATIONS, watching all night,—long a custom with the more pious

Christians, especially before the greater festivals.

PERPENDICULAR. The last style of pure Gothic architecture, which

succeeded the Decorated about 1360. It is most readily distinguished by

its window tracery (see _Tracery_); but the use of the four-centred arch

(see _Arch_) is a more important character, though by no means

invariably found in this style. Other characteristics will be found

under _Capital_, _Pillar_, _Vaulting_, _Moulding_.

PERPETUAL CURATE. The incumbent of a church, chapel, or district, which

is within the boundaries of a rectory or vicarage; so called from a

curate assistant, whose office expires with the incumbency of the person

who employs him.

PERPETUALS. Twenty ministers of the choir at Lyons, so called from being

bound to perpetual service there:—like our vicars-choral.

PERSECUTION. The sufferings which are inflicted by the world upon the

Church in all ages, the most striking of which were those which are

designated in history the _Ten Persecutions_, and which raged from the

time of Nero, A. D. 64, to the accession of Constantine, under the

successive Roman emperors, Domitian, (A. D. 81–86,) Trajan, Adrian,

Aurelius, Antoninus, Severus, Maximus, Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, and

Maximian, under the last of whose rule the persecution raged against the

Church in East and West for the space of ten years. Each of these

periods swelled the list of the noble army of martyrs. Under Nero, the

apostles St. Peter and St. Paul suffered. St. Clement, bishop of Rome;

Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem; and Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, were put

to death in the reign of Trajan. In the persecution of Aurelius, Justin

Martyr, Athenagoras, Apollinaris, and Tatian presented their apologies,

as did Tertullian in the next persecution under Severus (200).

Nicephorus, an ecclesiastical historian, tells us that it were easier to

count the sands upon the seashore than to number the martyrdoms in the

persecution under Decius (249). The great St. Cyprian, bishop of

Carthage, suffered under Valerian (14th of September, 258).

Though the above ten are the most memorable of the persecutions of the

cross of CHRIST, the Church has ever been opposed by the world. Thus in

our country, during the Rebellion, the king and primate underwent

martyrdom, while thousands of faithful men suffered the loss of all

things for the name of CHRIST. And, even in this day, though physical

persecution is forbidden by the law, moral persecution is more or less

endured by every self-denying Christian, who has to bear taunts and

nicknames from ungodly men.

PERSEVERANCE, FINAL. According to the Calvinistic system, the elect

receive the grace of perseverance, so that when grace has once been

received, they cannot finally fall from it. This follows from their view

of election. But, according to the Catholic view of grace and of

election, men may fall, and fall finally, from the grace they have once

received. The reader is requested to refer to the article on _Election_;

this may be considered a continuation. Since the reformed Church of

England (with the primitive and Catholic) regards election as an

admission into the pale of the visible Church Catholic, _not_ a

necessary and infallible admission into eternal glory, she obviously

could not teach the doctrine of the assured final perseverance of every

individual among the elect; but, annexing a totally different sense to

the word _elect_ itself from that which is jointly advocated by Calvin

and by Arminius, she consistently pronounces that the elect, as she

understands the term, _may_ finally fall away, and thence may

everlastingly perish.

To this moral possibility of final apostasy the Anglican Church, as was

felt by the Calvinistic party in the conference at Hampton Court,

alludes, though she does not specifically there define the matter, in

her sixteenth Article.

“After we have received the HOLY GHOST, we may depart from grace given

and fall into sin; and, by the grace of GOD, we may rise again, and

amend our lives.”

Here it seems to be not obscurely intimated, that the elect, even after

they have received the HOLY GHOST, may so depart from grace given, and

may so fall into sin, that they either may, or may not, be restored by

the influential grace of GOD.

Such, accordingly, was doubtless perceived to be the case by the

Calvinistic party; for otherwise it is impossible to account for their

proposed alteration of the article, which would have made it speak the

language of assured personal final perseverance.

They moved King James, that, to the original words of the article,

“after we have received the HOLY GHOST, we may depart from grace given,

and fall into sin,” might be subjoined the following explanatory

addition, “yet neither totally nor finally.”

Had this addition been made, the seventeenth Article would doubtless

have taught the doctrine of the final perseverance of all the elect. The

wish to make it do so imported a consciousness that the reformed

Anglican Church held no such doctrine.

Nor was this consciousness ill-founded. The homily on “Falling from GOD”

as we might anticipate from its very title, distinctly asserts, in both

its parts, the moral possibility, in the elect, of finally departing

from grace given, and of thus perishing everlastingly.

The doctrine of the possibility of the elect finally falling away, says

Faber in his work on “Election,” from grace to perdition; a doctrine

which, in truth, is nothing more than the inevitable and necessary

result of that ideality of election, which, from primitive antiquity,

has been adopted by the Anglican Church, is very distinctly and very

affectingly propounded also in her admirable and sublime burial service.

“Spare us, LORD most holy, O GOD most mighty, O holy and merciful

SAVIOUR, thou most worthy Judge eternal, suffer us not, at our last

hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee.”

The prayer before us is couched in the pluralizing form, and the persons

who are directed concurrently with the officiating minister to use it,

are those identical persons who, having been chosen in the course of

Divine providence, and brought by baptism into the pale of the visible

Church, have thence been declared to be the elect people of GOD.

Consequently those who, in the judgment of the Church of England, are

the elect people of GOD, are nevertheless directed to pray, that the

LORD would not suffer them, at their last hour, for any pains of death,

to fall from him.

Hence, as the English Church understands the term _elect_, it is

possible, from the very necessity of such a prayer, that those who are

elect may not only for a season fall away from GOD and be afterward

renewed by repentance, but may even fall away from him totally and

finally.

PERSON. (See _Trinity_.) On the awful subject of the persons in the

TRINITY we shall merely quote the Athanasian Creed. “The Catholic faith

is this. That we worship One GOD in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there

is One Person of the FATHER, another of the SON, and another of the HOLY

GHOST.

“But the GODHEAD of the FATHER, of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST, is

all One: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.”

The application of the term “Persons” to the sacred Three has been

objected to; but it is defensible on the ground of the impossibility of

finding a phrase equally expressive, and less objectionable. Archbishop

Tillotson well says, “Because we find the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST

spoken of in Scripture as we should speak of three Persons, therefore we

call them Persons; and since the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD in Scripture hath

thought fit, in speaking of these three, to distinguish them from one

another, as we use in common speech to distinguish three several

persons, I cannot see any reason why, in the explication of this

mystery, which purely depends upon Divine revelation, we should not

speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth.” Precision in

speaking of objects of faith seems, beyond this, impossible. That the

FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST are three, distinguished from each other in

Scripture, is clear; as it is also that there is but one GOD. Why, then,

refuse the word “Persons,” used with due reverence and humility, by

which we only understand a peculiar distinction in each, making, in some

way, a difference from the other two? Indeed the objection was despised

as a bad one by even Socinus himself.

But in fact the word “Person” is used by St. Paul as applied both to the

FATHER and the SON; to the former, Heb. i. 3; to the latter, 2 Cor. ii.

10, and also iv. 6, as it should have been rendered.

The word was used, and well applied, against the opinion entertained by

the Sabellians, that there was but one real Person in the GODHEAD with

different manifestations; and the notion of three hypostases with an

individual unity in the Divine essence, was generally received in the

Church as a proper mean for avoiding the opposite heresies of Sabellius

and Arius.

The Latin Church understanding “substance” by the term _hypostasis_, as

used by the Greek Church, and denying three substances, would not

readily use that term, but adopted the word “Person,” (_Persona_,) to

characterize the three distinct subsistencies in the one Divine essence.

And hence has arisen a charge, (the word _hypostasis_ being used for

_Person_ in the Greek copies of the Creed,) that the Nicene and

Athanasian Creeds are in opposition to each other; the former asserting

that the SON “is of one substance with the FATHER,” while, according to

the latter, there is one substance of the FATHER, another of the SON,

&c. But as the word is rightly translated in our version “Person,” from

the original Latin, the objection, which is still repeated, (the passage

being quoted as if it were one “substance”—not one “Person—of the

FATHER,” &c.,) is persevered in under a mistake, if it be not a wilful

misrepresentation.—See _Bull_ and _Waterland_.

PERSONA. A term applied in ancient cathedral and collegiate churches to

those who held particular offices, not necessarily of dignity, or of

jurisdiction, but involving personal responsibility, and strict

residence. In England, at Salisbury and other cathedrals of the old

foundation, the dignitaries, as the dean, precentor, chancellor, and

treasurer, &c., were called _Personæ Principales_, or _Privilegiatæ_, as

having each a peculiar office, connected with the service of the church.

At St. Paul’s the four archdeacons were included in this title, though

somewhat incorrectly.—_Dugdale’s St. Paul’s_, p. 235. In other places,

as at York, and Beverley, the inferior priests were called Personæ.

Abroad the _Personnate_ were chiefly offices of the inferior collegiate

clergy, generally implying some individual office, as subchanter,

sacristan, &c. &c.—_Jebb._

PETER-PENCE was an annual tribute of one penny, paid at Rome out of

every family, at the feast of St. Peter. This, Ina, the Saxon king, when

he went in pilgrimage to Rome, about the year 740, gave to the pope,

partly as alms, and partly by way of recompense for a house erected in

Rome for English pilgrims. It continued to be generally paid until the

time of King Henry VIII., when it was enacted, that henceforth no person

shall pay any pensions, Peter-pence, or other impositions, to the use of

the bishop and see of Rome.

PETER’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the

twenty-ninth of June.

St. Peter was born at Bethsaida, a town situated upon the banks of the

sea of Galilee. He was originally called Simon, or Simeon, to which our

SAVIOUR, after his conversion, added the name of Cephas, which, in the

vulgar language of the Jews, signified a stone, or rock: from thence it

was derived into the Greek Πέτρος, (Petrus,) which is of the same

import. Our LORD probably intended to denote thereby the constancy and

firmness of his faith, and his activity in building up the Church.

St. Peter was a fisherman by trade, and brother of St. Andrew, who first

brought him to our SAVIOUR. He became a disciple and follower of CHRIST,

upon seeing the miracle of the great draught of fishes, and was one of

his most immediate companions. He is by the ancients styled the mouth of

the apostles, because he was the first and forwardest, on all occasions,

to profess his zeal and attachment to our SAVIOUR; for which reason our

LORD pronounced him blessed. But it does not appear that our SAVIOUR

gave any personal prerogative to St. Peter, as universal pastor and head

of the Church. He is first placed among the apostles, because, as most

think, he was first called. If he is styled “a rock,” all the apostles

are equally styled “foundations;” and the power of the keys is promised

to the rest of the apostles as well as to St. Peter.

This apostle became a great example of human frailty, in his behaviour

upon the approach of our SAVIOUR’S sufferings. It is well known, that,

for fear of being involved in the punishment with which his Master was

threatened, he disclaimed all knowledge of him, and denied him thrice.

But he soon recovered from his fall, and endeavoured by penitential

tears to wash away his guilt.

St. Peter’s first mission, after our SAVIOUR’S ascension, was to those

Christians whom Philip the deacon had converted in Samaria; where he

conferred on them the gift of the HOLY GHOST, and severely rebuked Simon

Magus, for imagining the gift of GOD could be purchased with money. Some

time after, he had a special vision from heaven, by which the Divine

goodness removed those prejudices of his education, which the Jews had

entertained against the Gentiles. In the dispute between the Jewish and

Gentile converts, he declared GOD’S acceptance of the Gentiles, and that

the yoke of the Jewish rites ought not to be laid upon them. Yet

afterwards he dissembled his Christian liberty, and thereby confirmed

the judaizing Christians in their errors; for which he stands justly

rebuked by St. Paul. Being imprisoned by Herod, he was miraculously

delivered by an angel, who knocked off his chains, and conducted him to

a place of safety.

St. Peter, afterwards, preached at Antioch, and was the first bishop of

that place. He likewise preached the gospel to the Jews dispersed in

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia. Towards the latter end of his

life, he went to Rome, about the second year of the emperor Claudius,

where he laboured in establishing Christianity, chiefly among the Jews,

being the apostle of the circumcision. Here he set himself to expose the

impostures of Simon Magus, which he did successfully, by working himself

those wonders that Simon falsely boasted of. Particularly, he raised to

life a kinsman of the emperor, which the magician had attempted in vain.

And, when Simon Magus, to recover his reputation, pretended to fly up to

heaven from the hill of the Capitol, by the prayers of St. Peter his

artificial wings failed him, and falling he was so bruised, that in a

short time he died.

St. Peter suffered martyrdom about the year of Christ 69, under the

emperor Nero, whom he had provoked by his success against Simon Magus,

and by his reducing many dissolute women to a sober and virtuous life;

and it was probably in that persecution when the emperor burnt Rome, and

charged the Christians with the guilt and punishment of it. He was

crucified with his head downwards. It is said, his body was embalmed by

Marcellinus the presbyter, and buried in the Vatican, near the Triumphal

Way, where there was a church erected to his memory, now the famous

cathedral of St. Peter’s at Rome.

PEWS. These are enclosed seats in churches. Pews, according to modern

use and idea, were not known till long after the Reformation. Enclosed

pews were not in general use before the middle of the seventeenth

century: they were for a long time confined to the family of the patron.

There were, however, long before there were enclosed pews, appropriated

seats: and as concerning seats many disputes arise, we will mention what

the law is as to these particulars. As to seats in the body of the

church, the freehold of the soil is in the incumbent, and the seats are

fixed to the freehold; yet, because the church itself is dedicated to

the service of GOD, and the seats are built that the people may more

conveniently attend Divine service, therefore, where there is any

contention about a seat in the body of the church, upon complaint made

to the ordinary, he may decide the controversy by placing that person in

it whom he thinks fit: and this power is conferred upon him by law,

because he who has the general cure of souls within his diocese, is

presumed to have a due regard to the qualities of the contending

parties, and to give precedence to him who ought to have it. And though

the seats are built and repaired at the charge of the parish; and the

churchwardens should prescribe, that, by reason thereof, they have used

to dispose them to such persons as they thought fit, yet since of common

right the ordinary has the disposal thereof, and by the same right the

parishioners ought to repair them, therefore such prescription shall not

be allowed against his jurisdiction. But this jurisdiction extends only

to placing or displacing the inhabitants of the parish; for the ordinary

cannot grant a seat to a man and his heirs, because a seat in the church

properly belongs to some house in the parish, and not to the person, but

as owner of the house; and if such grant should be good to a man and his

heirs, they would have the seat, though they lived in another parish,

which is very unreasonable, and contrary to the original intention of

building seats in churches, which was for the inhabitants of that

parish, that they might more conveniently attend the service of the

church; and certainly if the bishop cannot make such a grant, no private

person can do it, for the reasons before mentioned.

But where there is no contention, and the ordinary does not interpose,

because there is no complaint, there the parson and churchwardens have

power to place the parishioners in seats; and in some places the

churchwardens alone have that power by custom, as in London. If a seat

is built in the body of the church, without the consent of the bishop,

the churchwardens may pull it down, because it was set up by a private

person without the licence of the ordinary; but it hath been held, that

if in removing such seat they cut the timber, or break it, an action of

trespass lies against them. This, like many other cases reported by Mr.

Noy, is not law: for the freehold of the church being in the incumbent,

when the person has fixed a seat to it, it is then become parcel of his

freehold, and consequently the right is in him, so that the breaking the

timber could not be prejudicial to the other, because he had no legal

right to the materials after they were fixed to the freehold. And

because seats in the body of the church are to be disposed by the parson

and churchwardens, therefore it was formerly held that a man cannot

prescribe for a seat there; and yet he might prescribe for the upper

part of a seat there. But now the law is settled as to this matter, viz.

that one may prescribe for a seat in the body of the church, setting

forth that he is seised of an ancient house, &c., and that he and all

those whose estate he hath therein, have, time out of mind, used and had

a seat in the body of the church for themselves and their families, as

belonging to the said house, and that they repaired the said seat; and

the reason why he must allege that he repaired it is, because the

freehold being in the parson, there must be some special cause shown for

such a prescription; but as to this matter the court distinguished

between an action on the case brought against a disturber and a

suggestion for a prohibition: for in the first case you need not allege

that you repair, because the action is brought against a wrong-doer; but

upon a suggestion for a prohibition it must be alleged that you repair,

because otherwise you shall not divest the ordinary of that right which

properly belongs to him. Tenants in common cannot make a joint

prescription to a seat in a church, but they may prescribe severally;

and if they should bring an action jointly for a disturbance, and upon

the evidence it should appear they are tenants in common, they must be

nonsuited, because such evidence will not maintain the title upon which

the action is founded, for though it is a possessory action, yet since

that possession must be maintained by a title derived out of a

prescription, they must prescribe severally. And in these prescriptions

there is not much exactness required; for if an action on the case is

brought for disturbing the plaintiff, &c., it is not sufficient for him

to allege, that he is seised in fee of a messuage, &c., (without saying

it is an ancient messuage,) and that he, and all those whose estate he

hath in the said messuage, had (without saying time out of mind) a seat

in the church, which they used to repair as often as there was occasion,

&c., this is well enough, because the action is founded on a wrong done

by one who disturbed him in his possession; in which action the

plaintiff will recover damages, if the verdict is found for him. It is

true he may libel in the spiritual court, and prescribe there for a

seat, &c.; but if the prescription is denied, a prohibition will be

granted; if it is not denied, then that court may proceed to sentence,

which, if it happen to be against the prescription, in such case also a

prohibition will lie, because the suit being upon a prescription, the

proceedings in it were _coram non judice_ in that court; but this seems

unreasonable, for it can be only to discharge the person of the costs

which he ought to pay. As to seats in aisles of churches, the law is,

that if a man has a house in a parish, and a seat in the aisle of the

church which he has repaired at his own charge, he shall not be

dispossessed by a bishop: if he should, he may have a prohibition,

because it shall be intended to be built by his ancestors, with the

consent of parson, patron, and ordinary, and appropriated by them to his

and their use; and if he is disturbed by any other person in sitting

there, he may have an action on the case against him, but then he must

prove that he repaired it: and so it was adjudged between Dawtree and

Dee, for seats in a little chapel in the north part of the chancel of

Petworth, in Sussex; for though no man can tell the true reason of

prescriptions, yet some probable reason must be alleged to gain such a

peculiar right, and none is more probable than repairing it. And this

will entitle a man to a seat in an aisle, though he lives in another

parish; and therefore, where the plaintiff set forth that he had an

ancient messuage in the parish of H., and that he and all those whose

estate he had in the said house, had a seat in the aisle in the parish

church of B.; this is a good prescription for a seat in the aisle,

because he or they might build or repair it, though it is not a good

prescription to have a seat _in nave ecclesiæ_ of another parish. As to

the chancel, the ordinary hath no authority to place any one there, for

that is the freehold of the rector; and so is the church; but he repairs

the one, but not the other, and it is for this reason that an

impropriator hath the chief seat in the chancel. But yet a man may

prescribe to have a seat here, as belonging to ancient messuage.

So much for the laws of pews: the history of their gradual introduction

into churches seems to be as follows:—

The first mention that we find made of a reading pew is in Bishop

Parkhurst’s Articles of Visitation for his diocese of Norwich, (1596,)

where it is ordered, “That in great churches, where all the people

cannot conveniently hear the minister, the churchwardens and others, to

whom the charge doth belong, shall provide and support a decent and

convenient seat in the body of the church, where the said minister may

sit or stand, and say the whole of the Divine service, that all the

congregation may hear and be edified therewith; and that in smaller

churches there be some convenient seat outside the chancel door, for

that purpose.”

Before this time, the appointed place for the priest was in the choir,

or, as appointed in the Second Book of King Edward, in such place of the

church, chapel, or chancel, as the people may best hear, without any

note of the provision of a pew, or any mention of “a little tabernacle

of wainscot, provided for the purpose.” The first authority for the

setting up of reading desks in all our churches, is the canon of 1603.

The earliest pew for the use of the congregation remaining, whose age is

determined by the appearance of a date, is in the north aisle of

Geddington St. Mary, Northamptonshire, and has the following

inscription:

_Churchwardens_, William Thorn,

John Wilkie,

_Minister_, Thomas Jones, 1602.

Another pew occurs in the same church, dated 1604.

From this time till the episcopate of Wren, bishop of Hereford, pews

seem to have become more universal, and only then to have found their

deserved rebuke. Among other questions in his several articles of

visitation we find the following: “Are all the seats and pews so

ordered, that they which are in them may kneel down in time of prayer,

and have their faces up to the holy table?” “Are there any privy closets

or close pews in your church? Are any pews so loftily made, that they do

any way hinder the prospect of the church or chancel, so that they which

be in them are hidden from the face of the congregation?”

The last question points at another objection to pews, besides their

destructive effect on the interior of a church. They seem to have

originated with the Puritans, and to have been intended to conceal the

persons sitting in them, that they might, without conviction, disobey

the rubrics and canons, providing for a decent deportment during Divine

service. The injunctions especially avoided under cover of pews, were

the order to bow at the name of JESUS, and the rule to stand at the

_Gloria Patri_.

It would, however, be equally absurd and unjust to apply such remarks to

the present times; nor shall we offer any reasons against pews instead

of open benches, except that they destroy the ecclesiastical character

of a church, that they encourage pride, that they make a distinction

where no distinction ought to exist, and that they must be erected at a

loss of 20 per cent. of church accommodation.—See the _Cambridge Camden

Society’s History of Pews_.

PHARISEES. From the Hebrew word _Pharez_, division, or separation. (In

other words, _sectarians_, or _separatists_.) The most sanctimonious

sect of the Jews, forming their religious world. They were denounced by

our LORD for their hypocrisy, that is to say, the hypocrisy of the

majority. St. Paul was originally a Pharisee: “after the most strictest

_sect_ (αἵρεσιν) of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.” Acts xxvi. 5.

PHILIP, ST., AND ST. JAMES’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church,

observed on the first day of May.

I. St. Philip was a native of Bethsaida, in Galilee, and probably a

fisherman, the general trade of that place. He had the honour of being

first called to be a disciple of our blessed SAVIOUR. It was to Philip

our SAVIOUR proposed that question, what they should do to procure so

much bread as would feed the vast multitude that followed him? It was to

him the Gentile proselytes addressed themselves, when desirous to see

JESUS. And it was with Philip our LORD had that discourse concerning

himself before the last supper.

The Upper Asia fell to this apostle’s lot, where he took great pains in

planting the gospel, and by his preaching and miracles made many

converts. In the latter end of his life, he came to Hierapolis in

Phrygia, a city very much addicted to idolatry, and particularly to the

worship of a serpent or dragon of prodigious bigness. St. Philip, by his

prayers, procured the death, or, at least, the disappearing, of this

monster, and convinced its worshippers of the absurdity of paying Divine

honours to such odious creatures. But the magistrates, enraged at

Philip’s success, imprisoned him, and ordered him to be severely

scourged, and then put to death; which, some say, was by crucifixion;

others, by hanging him up against a pillar.

St. Philip is generally reckoned among the married apostles; and it is

said, he had three daughters, two whereof persevered in their virginity,

and died at Hierapolis; the third, having led a very spiritual life,

died at Ephesus. He left behind him no writings. The Gospel, under his

name, was forged by the Gnostics, to countenance their bad principles,

and worse practices.

II. St. James the Less is styled, in Scripture, our LORD’S brother; and

by Josephus, eminently skilful in matters of genealogy, expressly called

the brother of JESUS CHRIST: by which the ancient Fathers understand,

that he was Joseph’s son by a former wife. He was surnamed the Less, to

distinguish him from the other St. James; and that either from the

stature of his body, or the difference of his age. But he acquired a

more honourable appellation from the piety and virtue of his life; which

was that of St. James the Just, by which he is still known.

After our SAVIOUR’S ascension, St. James was chosen bishop of Jerusalem.

St. Paul, after his conversion, addressed himself to this apostle, by

whom he was honoured with the right hand of fellowship. It was to St.

James, St. Peter sent the news of his miraculous deliverance out of

prison. This apostle was principally active at the Synod of Jerusalem,

in the great controversy concerning the Jewish rites and ceremonies. He

was of a meek and humble disposition. His temperance was admirable; for

he wholly abstained from flesh, and drank neither wine nor strong drink,

nor ever used the bath. Prayer was his constant business and delight,

and by his daily devotions his knees were become as hard and brawny as

camels.

St. Paul having escaped the malice of the Jews, by appealing to Cæsar,

they resolved to revenge it upon St. James, who was accused before their

council of transgressing the Law, and blaspheming against GOD. The

scribes and Pharisees endeavoured, by flattering speeches, to engage

him, at the confluence of the paschal solemnity, to undeceive the people

concerning JESUS CHRIST; and, that he might be the better heard, they

carried him with them to the top of the temple. There they addressed him

in these words; “Tell us, O just man, what are we to believe concerning

JESUS CHRIST, who was crucified?” He answered with a loud voice; “He

sits in heaven on the right hand of the Majesty on high, and will come

again in the clouds of heaven.” Enraged at this reply, they threw him

down from the place where he stood; and being very much bruised, though

not killed, he recovered strength enough to get upon his knees, and pray

for his murderers, who loaded him with a shower of stones, till one with

a fuller’s club beat out his brains.

PHOTINIANS, or SUTINIANS. Heretics, in the fourth century, so

denominated from Photinus, bishop of Simich, a person of great

accomplishments, and who, in the first years of his administration of

that see, appeared very regular, but changed suddenly after he had

taught the people the knowledge of the true GOD, that is, attempted to

corrupt them, says Vincentius Lirinensis, by his detestable opinions and

doctrine; for, not contented with renewing the errors of Sabellius,

Paulus Samosatenus, Cerinthus, and Ebion, he added to their impieties,

that JESUS CHRIST was not only mere man, but began to be the CHRIST when

the HOLY GHOST descended upon him in Jordan.

PHYLACTERY. (φυλακτήριον.) This word is derived from the Greek, and

properly denotes a _preservative_, such as pagans carried about them to

preserve them from evils, diseases, or dangers; for example, they were

stones, or pieces of metal, engraved under certain aspects of the

planets. The East is to this day filled with this superstition; and the

men do not only wear phylacteries for themselves, but for their animals

also.

PICARDS. The name of a Christian sect, who improved the mistakes of the

Adamites to the extravagance of going naked. They sprung up in the

beginning of the fifteenth century, and were denominated from one

Picard, who set it on foot: he ordered all his proselytes to go naked,

called himself the SON of GOD, and pretended he was sent into the world

as a new Adam, by his Father, to refresh the notion, and restore the

practice of the law of nature, which, he said, consisted principally in

two things, the community of women, and going stark naked. And one of

the principal tenets of this people was, that their party were the only

free people in nature, all other men being slaves, especially those who

wore any clothes upon the score of modesty.

PIE. This was the table used before the Reformation to find out the

service belonging to each day. If the word be of Greek origin, it may be

referred to πίναξ or πινακίδιον. But the Latin word is _pica_, which

perhaps came from the ignorance of the friars, who have thrust in many

barbarous words into the liturgies. Some say pie is derived from _litera

picata_, a great black letter in the beginning of some new order in the

prayer, and among printers that term is still used, the _pica letter_.

PIER. The solid masses of masonry between arched openings, as in

bridges, and between windows and doors. This name is so often given to

the pillars in Gothic architecture, that it would be pedantic entirely

to disuse it in that sense; but it ought in strictness to be confined at

least to those wall-like square pillars, which are found in Norman

architecture; as, for instance, alternately with proper pillars in

Durham cathedral, or in the nave of Norwich.

[Illustration:

Pier, Norwich.

]

PIETISTS. A set of zealous but misguided men in Germany, the followers

of Philip James Spener, who attempted the revival of what he called

vital religion in Germany in the seventeenth century, and to that end

assembled around him those like-minded with himself, and in societies

which he formed, commonly called _Colleges of Piety_, laid the

foundations of many disorders. His disciples, as is usual, far outran

the more measured zeal of their master; and their false notions,

amounting sometimes to principles of mutiny and sedition, gave rise to a

long and bitter controversy in Germany.