PILGRIMAGE. A kind of superstitious discipline, which consists in making

a journey to some holy place, in order to adore the relics of some

deceased saint. Pilgrimages began to be made in the fourth century, but

they were most in vogue after the end of the eleventh century, when

every one was for visiting places of devotion, not excepting kings and

princes; and even bishops made no difficulty of being absent from their

churches on the same account.

PILLAR. The isolated support of an arch, including base, shaft, and

capital, in Norman and Gothic architecture. There were great variations

in the forms of pillars during the progress of ecclesiastical

architecture. The Norman pillar is often a square, pier-like mass,

relieved by attached semi-pillars, or by three-quarter shaft in retiring

angles, as in the accompanying example from Norwich; or it is a

cylindrical shaft, often fluted, or cut in zigzags or other diaper

patterns. The Early English pillar frequently consists of a central

bearing shaft, surrounded by smaller detached shafts; either set almost

close to the central shaft, sometimes even within hollows, as at York,

so as to lose the effect of their separateness, or at a very

considerable distance from the central shaft, as at Chichester and Ely.

[Illustration:

Pillar, Norwich.

]

[Illustration:

York

]

[Illustration:

Chichester.

]

[Illustration:

Ely.

]

The Geometrical pillar but seldom retains the detached shaft. Its

section is perhaps more usually a quatrefoil than any other single form;

but there are countless varieties, the mouldings always of course

following the style to which they belong. The accompanying example is

from St. Asaph. The Decorated pillar is equally various in section;

where it is moulded, the ogee usually forms part of it, but in small and

plain examples it is very frequently a simple octagon. In the

Perpendicular the pillar follows the general poverty of the style, but

it is also distinguished by the base being stilted; by the outer

mouldings being continuous, and the inner order only being carried by an

attached shaft with a capital; and by its being narrower from east to

west than from north to south. The exceptions, however, to all these

rules are so numerous, that they could only be represented by many

illustrations.

[Illustration:

St. Asaph.

]

PINNACLE. A small spire-like termination to a buttress, or to any

decorative shaft rising above the parapet. In buttresses, especially

flying buttresses, the pinnacles are of great use in resisting the

outward pressure by their weight. They do not occur in Norman

architecture; they are, in fact, a correlative of the pointed arch.

The pinnacle at the temple at Jerusalem was probably the gallery, or

parapet, or wall on the top of the buttresses, which surrounded the roof

of the temple, properly so called. Josephus tells us that the roof of

the temple was defended by pretty tall golden spikes, to hinder birds

from alighting thereon. It was not on the roof of the temple that JESUS

CHRIST was placed, but on the wall that surrounded the roof.—_Calmet’s

Dict. of the Bible, ed. Taylor._

PISCINA. Originally signified a fishpond; and in a secondary sense, any

vessel for holding or receiving water. A water drain, usually

accompanied with decorative features, near the altar, on the south side.

The piscina is often the only remaining indication of the place where an

altar has been. Some churches have double piscinas.

PISCIS, PISCICULI, and VESICA PISCIS. The fish is an hieroglyphic of

JESUS CHRIST, very common in the remains of Christian art, both

primitive and mediæval. The origin of it is as follows:—From the name

and title of our blessed LORD, Ἰησοῦς Χριστὺς Θεοῦ Ὑιὸς Σωτὴρ, JESUS

CHRIST, the SON of GOD, the SAVIOUR, the early Christians, taking the

first letter of each word, formed the name ἸΧΘΥΣ, _Piscis_, a fish. From

this name of our blessed LORD, Christians also came to be called

_Pisciculi_, fishes, with reference to their regeneration in the waters

of baptism, consecrated to that effect by our blessed LORD, the mystical

ἸΧΘΥΣ. Thus Tertullian, speaking of Christians, says, “for we, after our

LORD and SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST, our ἸΧΘΥΣ, are also fishes, and born in

the water; nor are we otherwise saved but by remaining in the water.”

The _Vesica Piscis_, which is the figure of an oval, generally pointed

at either end, and which is much used as the form of the seals of

religious houses, and to enclose figures of JESUS CHRIST, or of the

saints, also has its rise from this name of our blessed LORD: though

some say, that the mystical _Vesica Piscis_ has no reference, except in

its name, to a fish, but represents the almond, the symbol of virginity

and self-production. Clement of Alexandria, in writing of the ornaments

which a Christian may consistently wear, mentions the fish as a proper

device for a ring, and says, that it may serve to remind the Christian

of the origin of his spiritual life.

PIUS IV. (See _Creed_.)

PLANETA. (See _Chasuble_.)

PLENARTY, (from the word _plenus_, “full,”) signifying that a church is

full, or provided with, an incumbent.

PLURALITY. This is where the same person obtains two or more livings

with cure of souls. There are various canons of the Church against the

practice; and the authorities of the Church are taking prompt measures

to abolish it in the English Church. The statute 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106, and

subsequently the 13 and 14 Vic. c. 98, made very important changes in

the law of England regarding pluralities.

PLUVIALE. Another name for the cope: so called because it was originally

a cloak, a defence from the rain. (See _Cope_.)

PLYMOUTH BRETHREN. Of this sect, who call themselves the Brethren, the

following account is taken from the Register-general’s return.

“Those to whom this appellation is applied receive it only as

descriptive of their individual state as Christians—not as a name by

which they might be known collectively as a distinct religious _sect_.

It is not from any common doctrinal peculiarity or definite

ecclesiastical organization that they have the appearance of a separate

community; but rather from the fact that, while all other Christians are

identified with some particular _section_ of the Church of GOD, the

persons known as ‘Brethren’ utterly refuse to be identified with any.

Their existence is, in fact, a protest against all sectarianism; and the

primary ground of their secession from the different bodies to which

most of them have once belonged, is, that the various tests by which, in

all these bodies, the communion of true Christians with each other is

prevented or impeded, are unsanctioned by the Word of GOD. They see no

valid reason why the Church (consisting of all true believers) which is

_really_ one, should not be also _visibly_ united, having as its only

bond of fellowship and barrier of exclusion, the reception or rejection

of those vital truths by which the Christian is distinguished from the

unbeliever. Looking at existing churches, it appears to them that _all_

are faulty in this matter; _national_ Churches by adopting a too

lax—_dissenting_ Churches by adopting a too limited—criterion of

membership. The former, it appears to Brethren, by considering as

members all within a certain territory, mingle in one body the believers

and the unbelievers; while the latter, by their various tests of

doctrine or of discipline, exclude from their communion many who are

clearly and undoubtedly true members of the universal Church. The

Brethren, therefore, may be represented as consisting of all such as,

practically holding all the truths essential to salvation, recognise

each other as, on that account alone, true members of the only Church. A

difference of opinion upon aught besides is not regarded as sufficient

ground for separation; and the Brethren, therefore, have withdrawn

themselves from all those bodies in which tests, express or virtual, on

minor points, are made the means of separating Christians from each

other.

“In the judgment of the Brethren, the disunion now existing in the

general Church is the result of a neglect to recognise the HOLY SPIRIT

as its all-sufficient guide. Instead, they say, of a reliance on his

promised presence and sovereignty as CHRIST’S vicar on earth, ever

abiding to assert and maintain his lordship in the Church according to

the written Word, men, by their creeds and articles, have questioned the

sufficiency of Scripture as interpreted to all by him, and, by their

ministerial and ritual appointments, have assumed to specify the

channels through which only can his blessings be communicated. All these

various human forms and systems are believed by Brethren to be destitute

of scriptural authority, and practically restrictive of the HOLY

SPIRIT’S operations.

“Chiefly with regard to _ministry_ are these opinions urged; the usual

method of ordaining special persons to the office, being held to be

unscriptural and prejudicial. They conceive that Christians in general

confound _ministry_ (i.e. the exercise of a spiritual gift) with _local

charges_, as eldership, &c. Such charges, they infer from Scripture,

required the sanction of apostles or their delegates, to validate the

appointment (Acts xiv. 23; Titus i. 5); whereas the ‘gifts’ never needed

any human authorization (Acts xviii. 24–28; Rom. xii.; 1 Cor. xii.—xvi.;

Phil. i. 14; 1 Peter iv. 9, 10). Further, they urge that while

_Scripture warrants the Church to expect a perpetuity of ‘gifts,’_—as

evangelists, pastors, teachers, exhorters, rulers, &c.,—because they are

requisite for the work of the ministry, (Eph. iv. 7–13,)—_it nowhere

guarantees a permanent ordaining power_, without which the nomination or

ordaining of elders is valueless. _All_ believers are, it is affirmed,

true spiritual priests capacitated for worship, (Heb. x. 19–25,) and all

who possess the qualifications from the LORD are authorized to

evangelize the world or instruct the Church; and such have not alone the

_liberty_, but also an _obligation_ to employ whatever gift may be

intrusted to their keeping. Hence, in their assemblies, Brethren have no

pre-appointed person to conduct or share in the proceedings; all is open

to the guidance of the HOLY GHOST at the time, so that he who believes

himself to be so led of the SPIRIT, may address the meeting, &c. This

arrangement is considered to be indicated as the proper order in 1 Cor.

xiv.,—to flow from the principle laid down in 1 Cor. xii.,—and to be

traceable historically in the Acts of the Apostles. By adopting it, the

Brethren think that they avoid two evils, by which all existing sects

are, more or less, distinguished; the first, the evil of not employing

talents given to believers for the Church’s benefit; the second, the

evil of appointing as the Church’s teachers men in whom the gifts

essential for the work have not yet been discovered. The Brethren,

therefore, recognise no separate orders of ‘clergy’ and ‘laity’—all are

looked upon as equal in position, (Matt. xxiii. 8; 1 Cor. x. 17; xii.

12–20, &c.,) differing only as to ‘gifts’ of ruling, teaching,

preaching, and the like (Rom. xii. 4–8; 1 Cor. xii. 18, 28, &c.). The

ordinances, consequently, of baptism, when administered, and the LORD’S

supper, which is celebrated weekly, need no special person to administer

or preside (Acts ix. 10–18; x. 48; xx. 7; 1 Cor. xi.). Another feature

of some importance is, that wherever gifted men are found among the

Brethren, they, in general, are actively engaged in preaching and

expounding, &c., _on their own individual responsibility to the Lord,

and quite distinct from the assembly_. So that, though they may

occasionally use the buildings where the Brethren meet, it is in no way

as ministers of the Brethren, but of CHRIST.

“The number of places of worship which the Census officers in England

and Wales returned as frequented by the Brethren was 132; but probably

this number is below the truth, in consequence of the objection which

they entertain to acknowledge any sectarian appellation. Several

congregations may be included with the number (96) described as

‘Christians’ only.”

PŒNULA. (See _Chasuble_.)

POLITY, ECCLESIASTICAL. By this is meant the constitution and government

of the Christian Church, considered as a society.

Scarce anything in religion (says a learned author) has been more

mistaken than the nature and extent of that power, which our blessed

SAVIOUR established in his Church. Some have not only excluded the civil

magistrates of Christian states from having any concernment in the

exercise of this power, and exempted all persons invested with it from

the civil courts of justice, but have raised their supreme governor of

the Church to a supremacy, even in civil affairs, over the chief

magistrate; insomuch that he has pretended, on some occasions, to

absolve subjects from their allegiance to their lawful princes; and

others have run so far into contrary mistakes, as either to derive all

spiritual power wholly from the civil magistrate, or to allow the

exercise thereof to all Christians without distinction. The first of

these opinions manifestly tends to create divisions in the State, and to

excite subjects to rebel against their civil governors: the latter do

plainly strike at the foundation of all ecclesiastical power; and

wherever they are put in practice, not only the external order and

discipline, but even the sacraments of the Church must be destroyed, and

its whole constitution be quite dissolved.

The nature of ecclesiastical polity will be best understood by looking

back to the constitution of the ancient Christian Church.

The Church, as a society, consisted of several orders of men. Eusebius

reckons three: viz. the Ἡγούμενοι, Πιστοὶ, and Κατηχούμενοι, i. e.

_rulers_, _believers_, and _catechumens_. Origen reckons five orders:

but then he divides the clergy into three orders, to make up the number.

Both these accounts, when compared together, come to the same thing.

Under the Ἡγούμενοι, or rulers, are comprehended the clergy, bishops,

priests, and deacons; under the Πιστοὶ, or believers, the baptized

laity; and under the Κατηχούμενοι, or catechumens, the candidates for

baptism. The believers were perfect Christians; the catechumens

imperfect. The former, having received baptism, were allowed to partake

of the eucharist; to join in all the prayers of the Church; and to hear

discourses upon the most profound mysteries of religion: more

particularly the use of the LORD’S Prayer was the sole prerogative of

the believers, whence it was called Εὐχὴ πιστῶν, the prayer of

believers. From all these privileges the catechumens were excluded. (See

_Catechumens_.)

The distinction between the laity and the clergy may be deduced from the

very beginnings of the Christian Church; notwithstanding that Rigaltius,

Salmasius, and Selden pretend there was originally no distinction, but

that it is a novelty, and owing to the ambition of the clergy of the

third century, in which Cyprian and Tertullian lived. (See _Clergy_.)

The clergy of the Christian Church consisted of several orders, both

superior and inferior.

The superior orders of the clergy were, 1. The Bishops; 2. The

Presbyters; 3. The Deacons.

It has been pretended that the bishops and presbyters were the same; and

this opinion has given rise to the sect of the Presbyterians. But it is

clearly proved against them, from ecclesiastical antiquity, that bishops

and presbyters were distinct orders of the clergy. (See _Bishops_,

_Deacons_, _Presbyters_, and _Presbyterians_.)

Among the bishops there was a subordination, they being distinguished

into, 1. Primate Metropolitans; 2. Patriarchs or Archbishops; 3.

Diocesan Bishops; 4. Chorepiscopi or Suffragan Bishops. (See the

articles _Archbishops_, _Chorepiscopi_, _Diocese_, _Patriarchs_. and

_Primates_.)

The presbyters were the second order of the superior clergy, and besides

being the bishop’s assistants in his cathedral church, had the care of

the smaller districts, or parishes, of which each diocese consisted.

(See _Parishes_ and _Presbyters_.)

The deacons were the third order of the superior clergy, and were a kind

of assistants to the bishops and presbyters, in the administration of

the eucharist, and other parts of Divine service. There were likewise

deaconesses, or female deacons, who were employed in the service of the

women. Out of the order of deacons was chosen the archdeacon, who

presided over the deacons and all the inferior officers of the Church.

(See the articles _Archdeacons_, _Deacons_, and _Deaconesses_.)

The inferior orders of the clergy were, 1. The Sub-deacons; 2. The

Acolyths; 3. The Exorcists; 4. The Readers; 5. The Door-keepers; 6. The

Singers; 7. The Copiatæ, or Fossarii; 8. The Parabolani; 9. The

Catechists; 10. The Syndics; 11. The Stewards. (See _each under their

respective articles_.)

All these orders of the clergy were appointed to their several offices

in the Church by solemn forms of consecration or ordination, and had

their respective privileges, immunities, and revenues. And, by means of

this gradation and subordination in the hierarchy, the worship and

discipline of the primitive Church were exactly kept up, according to

St. Paul’s direction, “Let everything be done decently, and in order.”

How far the constitution of our own Church agrees with, or has departed

from, this plan of the ancient hierarchy, may be seen at one glance of

the eye. We have the general distinction of bishops, presbyters or

priests, and deacons. Among the first we retain only the distinction of

archbishops (with the title likewise of primates) and bishops, having no

patriarchs or chorepiscopi. And as to the inferior orders of the clergy,

as acolyths, &c., they are all unknown to the Church of England. The

Romish Church has retained most of them, but it were to be wished she

came as near to the faith and worship, as she does to the external

constitution, of the hierarchy of the ancient Church.

But, as no society can subsist without laws, and penalties annexed to

the breach of them, so the unity and worship of the Christian Church

were secured by laws both ecclesiastical and civil. The ecclesiastical

laws were, either rules and orders made by each bishop for the better

regulation of his particular diocese; or laws made, in provincial

synods, for the government of all the diocese of a province; or, lastly,

laws respecting the whole Christian Church, made in general councils, or

assemblies of bishops from all parts of the Christian world. (See

_Synods_.)

The civil laws of the Church were those decrees and edicts, made from

time to time by the emperors, either restraining the power of the

Church, or granting it new privileges, or confirming the old.

The breach of these laws was severally punished both by the Church and

State. The ecclesiastical censures, respecting offenders among the

clergy, were, chiefly, suspension from the office, and deprivation of

the rights and privileges of the order. Those respecting the laity

consisted chiefly in excommunication, or rejection from the communion of

the Church, and penance both public and private.

POLYGLOTT BIBLES, are such Bibles, or editions of the Holy Scriptures,

as are printed in various languages, at least three, the texts of which

are ranged in opposite columns. Some of these Polyglott editions contain

the whole Bible, others but a part of it. The principal Polyglotts that

have yet appeared are these following:—

1. The Bible of Francis Ximenes, cardinal of the order of St. Francis.

It was printed in 1514–17, in four languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and

Latin. From having been printed at Alcala, in Spain, anciently

_Complutum_, this is called the _Complutensian_ Polyglott. It cost

Cardinal Ximenes 50,000 ducats.

2. The Psalter of Justiniani, bishop of Nebbio, of the order of St.

Dominic. It appeared in 1516, in five languages; Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek,

Latin, and Arabic.

3. The Psalter, by John Potken, provost of the collegiate church of St.

George, at Cologne, published in 1518, in four languages—Hebrew, Greek,

Chaldee, and Latin.

4. The Pentateuch, published by the Jews, at Constantinople, in 1546, in

Hebrew, Chaldee, Persian, and Arabic; with the commentaries of Solomon

Jarchi.

5. The Pentateuch, by the same Jews, in the same city, in 1547, in four

languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, the vulgar Greek, and Spanish.

6. An imperfect Polyglott, containing only fragments of the book of

Genesis and of the Psalms; the Proverbs, the prophets Micah and Joel,

with part of Isaiah, Zechariah, and Malachi; published by John

Draconitis, of Carlostad, in Franconia, in 1563–5, in five

languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Latin, and German.

7. Christopher Plantin’s Polyglott Bible, published by order of Philip

II., king of Spain, Antwerp, in 1569, 1572. It is in eight volumes, and

in Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and Latin: with the Syriac version of the New

Testament. This is called the Antwerp Polyglott.

8. Vatablus’s Polyglott Bible, being the Old Testament in Hebrew and

Greek, with two Latin versions, one of St. Jerome, the other of Sanctus

Pagninus; and Vatablus’s notes. The editorship is attributed to R.

Stephens, by Bishop Walton. Dibdin ascribes it to Bertramus, Hebrew

professor at Geneva. It appeared at Heidelberg, in 1586.

9. A Bible in four languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German,

published by David Wolder, a Lutheran minister, at Hamburg, in 1596.

10. The Polyglotts of Elias Hutter, a German. The first, printed at

Nuremberg, in 1599, contains the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth,

in six languages; viz. the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Latin, Luther’s

German, and Sclavonian; or French, Italian, or Saxon; the copies varying

according to the nations they were designed for.

This author published the Psalter and New Testament, in Hebrew, Greek,

Latin, and German. But his chief work is the New Testament in twelve

languages, viz. Syriac, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, French, Latin,

German, Bohemian, English, Danish, and Polish. This was printed at

Nuremberg, in 1599.

11. M. le Jay’s Bible, in seven languages, printed at Paris, in 1645.

The languages are, the Hebrew, Samaritan, Chaldee, Greek, Syriac, Latin,

and Arabic.

12. Walton’s Polyglott, published in England, in 1657. In nine

languages, viz. the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Samaritan, Syrian, Arabic,

Æthiopic, Persic, and Latin; though no one book is printed in so many.

This was the most complete and perfect Polyglott ever published. It

consists of five volumes, with prolegomena, by Walton, which are in

themselves a treasure of biblical criticism, some treatises in the first

volume, several new Oriental versions in the fourth and fifth, and a

very large collection of various readings in the sixth.

13. Reineccius’, or the Leipsic Polyglott, printed at Leipsic, 1753, in

3 vols., in Latin, German, Hebrew, and Greek: a cheap and commodious

edition.

14. Bagster’s Polyglott, London, 1821, 4to and 8vo, in five languages,

Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English. Syriac.

POLYGLOTT PRAYER BOOK. The English Prayer Book was published in 1819, in

eight languages, English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, ancient and

modern Greek, and Latin.

PONTIFICAL. A book containing the offices used by a bishop, at

consecration of churches, &c. Thus the Roman Pontifical is the book of

offices for a bishop, according to the rites of the Roman Church. In

England the Pontifical is not by authority published separately from the

liturgy, so that it is never called by that name; though the offices of

confirmation and ordination, in fact, compose the English Pontifical.

For the consecration of churches and churchyards we have no office

appointed by sufficient authority. (See _Consecration of Churches_.)

PONTIFICALIA. Properly the ensigns of a pontiff’s or bishop’s office;

but the term is loosely used for any ecclesiastical dress. It is so used

in the account of Bishop Andrewes’ consecration of St. Mary’s,

Southampton, in Sparrow’s collection: “Episcopus capellam statim

ingressus niduit se pontificalibus.”

POOR MAN’S BOX; or _Poor Men’s Box_. Till the last review, it was

directed that the collection at the offertory should be put into the

_Poor Man’s Box_: a term which (in imitation of the Scotch liturgy) was

altered in the last review to a _decent basin_. It is clear, however,

from many documents, that basins of gold and silver, and other metinal

were used in the Church of England ever since the Reformation. In

Ireland the Poor Man’s Box, or _poor-box_, as it is generally called, is

still in general use. An oval box, half covered, of copper or wood, with

a long handle. The Poor Man’s Box does not seem to be the same as the

Alms’ Chest, prescribed by the 84th canon. So Wheatly observes: “not, I

presume, into that fixed in the church, but into a little box which the

churchwardens, or some other proper persons, carried about with them in

their hands, as is still the custom at the Temple Church in

London.”—_Jebb._

POPE, THE. The sovereign pontiff, or supreme head, of the Romish Church.

The appellation of Pope (_Papa_) was, anciently, given to all Christian

bishops: but, about the latter end of the eleventh century, in the

pontificate of Gregory VII., it was usurped by the bishop of Rome, whose

peculiar title it has ever since continued.

The spiritual monarchy of Rome sprang up soon after the declension of

the Roman empire; and one great, though remote, instrument, in promoting

the increase of this monarchy, so pernicious to the supreme civil power,

was, the barbarity and ignorance which from that time spread itself over

the Western parts.

Rome was chosen for the place of residence of the ecclesiastical

monarchy, because this city had the particular prerogative of being the

capital city of the Roman empire, where the Christian religion had its

first rise and increase. For what is related concerning St. Peter’s

chair is nothing but a vain pretence, which may easily be seen from

hence, that, afterwards, the bishop of Constantinople had the next place

assigned him after the bishop of Rome, only because that city was then

the place of the emperor’s residence, and called New Rome. And when

afterwards the Western empire was come to decay, and the city of Rome

had lost its former lustre, the bishop of Constantinople disputed the

precedency with the Roman bishop. It is true the emperor Phocas granted

the right of precedency to Boniface III., then bishop of Rome, who

thereupon took upon him the title of Œcumenical bishop: but this did not

imply any power or jurisdiction over the rest; for the other patriarchs

never acknowledged any. So that here are no footsteps of Divine

institution to be found, the papal power being purely human, and an

usurpation upon the rights of other sees.

The bishops of Rome did not extend their power over the Western parts

all at once; but it was introduced from time to time, by degrees, by

various artifices, and under various pretences. What chiefly contributed

to its growth was, first, the emperors choosing other places of

residence besides Rome; for, by their constant presence there, they

might easily have kept under the ambitious designs of the bishops. In

the next place, the Western empire was divided into several new

kingdoms, erected by the several barbarous and pagan nations, and these,

having been converted to the Christian faith by the direction of the

Romish Church, thought themselves obliged to pay her the profoundest

respect.

In the fifth century, the bishops on this side of the Alps began to go

to Rome, to visit the sepulchres of St. Peter and St. Paul. This

voluntary devotion insensibly grew into a necessity. From hence it was

easy for the popes afterwards to pretend, that the bishops ought to

receive their confirmation from Rome. Besides, some other bishops and

churches, that were novices in comparison of the ancient Roman Church,

used to refer themselves to, and ask the advice of, the Church of Rome,

concerning matters of great consequence, and the true interpretation of

the canons. Hence the bishops of Rome, perceiving their answers were

received as decisions, began to send their decrees before they were

demanded. And hence they set themselves up as judges of the differences

arising between the bishops, and, encroaching on the right and

jurisdiction of the metropolitans, proceeded to suspend and depose whom

they thought fit. At the same time, by making void the decisions of the

provincial synods, they so diminished their authority, that by degrees

they were quite abolished. Add to this, that Gregory VII. forced the

bishops to take an oath of fealty to the popes, and by a decree enacted

that none should dare to condemn any one, who had appealed to the pope.

Nor did they forget to send legates or nuncios to all places, whose

business was to exercise, in the pope’s name, the same authority, which

had formerly belonged to the bishops and provincial synods. (See

_Legate_.)

It is certain that many Romish bishops, especially among those on this

side the Alps, were to a late period opposed to the pope’s authority;

which evidently appeared at the Council of Trent, where the French and

Spanish bishops insisted very strongly to have it decided, that bishops

are obliged to residence by the law of GOD; the consequence of which

was, the deriving their authority from GOD alone. The pope met with

great difficulty before he could surmount this obstacle; and therefore

it is very likely this will be the last council, since the pope will

scarce put his grandeur to the hazard and decision of such another

assembly. Not to mention that they are now of no farther use, since the

Jesuits and others have taught, that the pope is infallible, and

superior to councils. However that may be, the bishops are obliged for

their own sakes not to withdraw themselves from the pope’s jurisdiction,

since thereby they would fall under the civil power, and would be

obliged to seek protection from their sovereigns, who must be potent

princes, if they could protect them against the pope; so that they think

it wiser, of two evils to choose the least.

The spiritual monarchy of Rome could not have been established, had its

bishops continued dependent on any temporal prince; and therefore the

popes took their opportunity to exempt themselves from the jurisdiction

of the Greek emperors, whose authority was mightily decayed in Italy.

This was greatly forwarded by the dispute concerning the use of images.

For the emperor Leo Isaurus having quite ejected them out of the

churches, Pope Gregory II., who stood up for the images, took occasion

to oppose him, and stirred up the Romans and Italians to refuse to pay

him tribute; by which means the power of the Greek emperors was lost in

Italy, and these countries began to be free and independent of any

foreign jurisdiction.

The pope, having freed himself from the authority of the emperors of

Constantinople, and being in danger from the Lombards, who endeavoured

to make themselves masters of Italy, had recourse for protection to the

kings of France. Pepin, and afterwards Charles the Great, having

entirely subdued the Lombards, these princes gave to the papal chair all

that tract of land, which had been formerly subject to the Greek

emperors. To obtain this gift, it is said, the pope made use of a

fictitious donation of Constantine the Great, which, in those barbarous

times, was easily imposed upon the ignorant world. By virtue of this

grant, the popes pretended to a sovereign jurisdiction over these

countries; which the people at first refused to submit to, thinking it

very strange, that the pope, who was an ecclesiastical person, should at

the same time pretend to be a temporal prince. When, therefore, the

Romans mutinied against Leo III., he was forced to seek for assistance

from Charles the Great, who restored the pope. On the other hand, the

pope and people of Rome proclaimed Charles emperor; whereby he was put

in possession of the sovereignty of that part of Italy, which formerly

belonged to the governors of Ravenna, and the other remnants of the

Western empire; so that the popes afterwards enjoyed these countries

under the sovereign jurisdiction of the emperor, who therefore used to

be called the patron and defender of the Church, till the reign of the

emperor, Henry VI.

The popes at length began to grow weary of the imperial protection,

because the emperor’s consent was required in the election of a pope,

and, if they were mutinous, the emperors used to check them, and

sometimes turn them out of the chair. The popes, therefore, for a long

time, employed various artifices to exempt themselves from the power of

the emperors. To this end, they frequently raised intestine commotions

against them. But the reign of Henry IV. furnished them with an

opportunity of putting their designs in execution. For Pope Gregory

VII., surnamed Hildebrand, had the boldness to excommunicate this

emperor, on pretence that he made a traffic of church benefices, by

selling them to all sorts of persons, whom he installed before they had

taken orders. And, not satisfied with this, he cited the emperor before

him, to answer to the complaints of his subjects, and declared him to

have forfeited all right and title to the empire. This obliged the

emperor to renounce the right of constituting bishops. And though his

son, Henry V., endeavoured to recover what was forcibly taken away from

his father, and made Pope Paschal a prisoner, yet were the whole clergy

in Europe so dissatisfied, that he was obliged at last to resign the

same right again into the pope’s hands. This affair gave rise to the

factions of the _Guelfs_ and _Ghibelines_, the first of which were for

the pope, the latter for the emperor. The succeeding emperors found so

much work in Germany, that they were not in a condition to look after

Italy; whereby the pope had sufficient leisure to make himself

sovereign, not only over his own possessions, but over all possessions

pertaining to the Church.

But the pope, not satisfied with this degree of grandeur, quickly set on

foot a pretension of far greater consequence. For now he pretended to an

authority over princes themselves, to command a truce between such as

were at war together, to take cognizance of their differences, to put

their kingdoms under an interdict, and, if they refused submission to

the see of Rome, to absolve their subjects from their allegiance, and to

deprive them of their crowns. This has been attempted against many

crowned heads, and put in execution against some of them. And for this

abominable pretension they pleaded their fictitious decretals, (see

_Decretals_,) which grant to the popes an unlimited power over all

Christians whatever. Pope Boniface VIII. gave the world clearly to

understand his meaning, at the jubilee kept in the year 1300, when he

appeared sometimes in the habit of an emperor, and sometimes in that of

a pope, and had two swords carried before him, as the ensigns of the

ecclesiastical and civil power.

But the popes could not long enjoy this intolerable usurpation in quiet;

for it was often called in question, till they were obliged to desist in

part from their pretensions. In particular, Philip the Handsome, king of

France, gave several great blows to the papal authority. But the ensuing

schisms, and the double elections, when the opposite factions chose two

different popes at the same time, contributed most towards weakening the

power of the holy see. Hence an occasion was taken to bridle the pope’s

authority by general councils, which often proceeded so far as to depose

the holy fathers. Therefore it is not to be wondered that, since the

Council of Trent, the popes have been very averse to the calling of

general councils, and seem to have bid adieu to them for ever. To this

may be added, that the translation of the papal chair, by Clement V.,

from Rome to Avignon, where the popes constantly resided for seventy

years together, carried along with it several inconveniences, which

proved greatly prejudicial to the ecclesiastical monarchy. Among others,

the pope’s authority being founded upon this belief, that St. Peter had

been at Rome, and by his presence had communicated a particular

prerogative and holiness to that chair, it was very much questioned

whether the same could be transferred to Avignon.

But, when the ecclesiastical monarchy seemed to be come to the pinnacle

of its grandeur, when all the Western parts were either in communion

with, or in obedience to, the Church of Rome, by the influence of the

Reformation, the pope became only the spiritual head of a sect, and

eventually, as a civil power, of very slight importance.

The manner of the election of a pope is as follows: nine or ten days

after the funeral of a deceased pope, the cardinals enter the conclave,

which is generally held in the Vatican, in a long gallery, where cells

of board are erected, covered with purple cloth, one for each cardinal.

(See _Conclave_.)

The election is made by _scrutiny_, _access_, or _adoration_. The first

is, when each cardinal writes the name of him whom he votes for, in a

scroll of five pages. On the first is written by one of his servants,

that the cardinal may not be discovered by his hand, “_Ego eligo in

summum pontificem reverendum dominum meum cardinalem_.” On this fold two

others are doubled down, and sealed with a private seal. On the fourth

the cardinal writes his own name, and covers it with the fifth folding.

Then, sitting in order on benches in the chapel, with their scrolls in

their hands, they go up to the altar by turns, and, after a short prayer

on their knees, throw the scroll into a chalice upon the table, the

first cardinal bishop sitting on the right hand, and the first cardinal

deacon on the left. The cardinals being returned to their places, the

cardinal bishop turns out the scrolls into a plate, which he holds in

his left hand, and gives them one by one to the cardinal deacon, who

reads them with an audible voice, while the cardinals note down how many

voices each person has; and then the master of the ceremonies burns the

scrolls in a chafing-dish, that it may not be known for whom any one

gives his voice. If two-thirds of the number present agree, the election

is made, and he, on whom the two-thirds fall, is declared pope.

When the choice is made by _access_, the cardinals rise from their

places, and, approaching him whom they would have elected, say, _Ego

accedo ad reverendissimum Dominum_. The choice by _adoration_ is much

after the same manner, only the cardinal approaches him whom he would

have chosen with the profoundest reverence. But both the one and the

other must be confirmed by the scrutiny.

There has been another way of choosing a pope, namely, by _compromise_:

that is, when the differences have risen so high that they could not be

adjusted in the conclave, they have referred the choice to three or

five, giving them leave to elect any one, provided it were determined

within the time that a candle lighted by common consent should last.

Sometimes they have had recourse to what is called _inspiration_; that

is, the first cardinal rises up in chapel, and, after an exhortation to

make choice of a capable person, immediately, as if inspired, names one

himself: to which, if two-thirds of the cardinals present agree, he is

reckoned legally chosen.

When one of the cardinals is chosen pope, the master of the ceremonies

comes to his cell, to acquaint him with the news of his promotion.

Whereupon he is conducted to the chapel, and clad in the pontifical

habit, and there receives the adoration, or the respects paid by the

cardinals to the popes. Then, all the gates of the conclave being

opened, the new pope shows himself to the people, and blesses them,

the first cardinal deacon proclaiming aloud these words: _Annuntio

vobis gaudium magnum; Papam habemus. Reverendissimus Dominus

Cardinalis—electus est in summum Pontificem, et eligit sibi nomen._

After this, he is carried to St. Peter’s church, and placed upon the

altar of the holy apostles, where the cardinals come a second time to

the adoration. Some days after is performed the ceremony of his

coronation, before the door of St. Peter’s church, where is erected a

throne, upon which the new pope ascends, has his mitre taken off, and

a crown put upon his head, in the presence of the people. Afterwards

is a grand cavalcade from St. Peter’s church to St. John Lateran,

where the archbishop of that church presents the new pope with two

keys, one of gold the other of silver.

It is probable that, in the first ages of the Church, the Roman clergy

elected the pope; and some think the people had a share in the election.

Afterwards, Odoacer, king of the Eruli, and Theodoric, king of the Goths

in Italy, would suffer no election of a pope to be made without their

consent. But this was abolished in 502, under Pope Symmachus. The

succeeding princes, however, reserved to themselves a right to confirm

the newly elected pope, who, without this confirmation, could not take

possession of the pontificate. The tenth century saw several popes

elected and deposed at the fancy of the Roman nobility and Italian

princes. But, since the election of Celestin II., in 1443, the cardinals

have retained the power of election, independent of the Roman people, or

of any sovereign prince whatever.

It is a general maxim, in the choice of a pope, to elect an Italian;

which is done, not only because they choose rather to bestow this

dignity on a native of Italy than on a foreigner, but also because the

security and preservation of the papal chair depends, in a great

measure, on the balance which is to be kept between France and Spain:

but this is not to be expected from a French or Spanish pope, who would

quickly turn the scale, and, by granting too great privileges to his

countrymen, endeavour to exclude others from the papal chair. It is also

a sort of maxim, to choose a pope who is pretty far advanced in years,

that there may be the quicker succession, and that it may not be in the

power of a pope, during a long reign, to alter their customs, or, by

making his family too powerful, to entail, as it were, the papal chair

upon his house. They also take care that he be not too near akin to the

deceased pope, that the vacant church benefices may not be engrossed by

one family. It often happens, that one is chosen pope, of whom nobody

thought before; and this comes to pass, when the cardinals are tired out

by so many intrigues, and are glad to get out of the conclave. It is

also observed, that a pope often proves quite another man, when he comes

to sit in the chair, than that he was before, when only a cardinal.

Ever since the time of Pope Sixtus IV., that is, since the year 1471,

the popes have made it their business to enrich their families out of

the Church revenues, of which there are very remarkable instances. For

it is related that Sixtus V., during a reign of five years, bestowed

upon his family above three millions of ducats. The house of the

Barbarini, at the death of Urban VIII., was possessed of 227 offices and

Church benefices, whereby they amassed thirty millions of scudi.

Sergius III., (A. D. 904,) or Sergius IV., (A. D. 1009,) who was before

called _Os Porci_, i. e. Swine-Face, is said to have been the first pope

who changed his name upon his exaltation to the pontificate. This

example has been followed by all the popes since his time, and they

assume the names of Innocent, Benedict, Clement, &c.

When a pope is elected, they put on him a cassock of white wool, shoes

of red cloth, on which is embroidered a gold cross, a mantle of red

velvet, the rochet, the white linen albe, and a stole set with pearls.

At home, his habit is, a white silk cassock, rochet, and scarlet mantle.

In winter his Holiness wears a fur cap; in summer, a satin one. When he

celebrates mass, the colour of his habit varies according to the

solemnity of the festival. At Whitsuntide, and all festivals of the

martyrs, he officiates in red; at Easter, and all festivals of virgins,

in white; in Lent, Advent, and eves of fasting days, in violet; and on

Easter-eve, and at all masses for the dead, in black. All these colours

are typical: the red expresses the cloven tongue, and the blood of the

martyrs; the white, the joy caused by our SAVIOUR’S resurrection, and

the chastity of virgins; the violet, the pale aspect of those who fast;

and the black, grief and mourning.

The pope’s tiara, or crown, is a kind of conic cap, with three coronets,

rising one above the other, and adorned with jewels. Paul II. was the

first who added the ornaments of precious stones to his crown. The

jewels of Clement VIII.’s crown were valued, they say, at 500,000 pieces

of gold. That of Martin V. had five pounds and a half weight of pearls

in it. “Nor is there anything unreasonable in this, (says Father

Bonani,) since the pope governs the kingdom of CHRIST in quality of his

viceroy; now this kingdom is infinitely superior to all the empires of

the universe. The high priest of the Jews wore on his head and breast

the riches which were to represent the majesty of the Supreme GOD. The

pope represents that of the SAVIOUR of the world, and nothing better

expresses it than riches.” We must not omit, that the two strings of the

pontifical tiara represent the two different manners of interpreting the

Scriptures, the mystical and the literal.

The pope has two seals. One is called “the fisherman’s ring,” and is the

impression of St. Peter holding a line with a bait to it in the water.

It is used for those briefs that are sealed with red wax. The other seal

is used for the bulls which are sealed with lead, and bears the figures

of St. Peter and St. Paul, with a cross on one side, and a bust, with

the name of the reigning pope, on the other. Upon the decease of a pope,

these seals are defaced and broken by the cardinal Camerlengo, in the

presence of three cardinals.

When the pope goes in procession to St. Peter’s, the cross is carried

before him on the end of a pike about ten palms long. “Many reasons,”

says F. Bonani, “authorize this custom. It is a monument of the

sufferings of JESUS CHRIST, and of the pope’s adherence to the SAVIOUR

of the world. It is the true mark of the pontifical dignity, and

represents the authority of the Church, as the Roman fasces did that of

the consuls.” At the same time two grooms bear two fans on each side of

his Holiness’s chair, to drive away the flies. This (according to the

above-cited author) represents the seraphim covering the face of GOD

with their wings.

The custom of kissing the pope’s feet is very ancient; to justify which

practice, it is alleged, that the pope’s slipper has the figure of the

cross upon the upper leather; so that it is not the pope’s foot, but the

cross of CHRIST, which is thus saluted.

There are but few instances of the papal power in England before the

Norman Conquest. But the pope, having favoured and supported William I.

in his invasion of this kingdom, made that a handle for enlarging his

encroachments, and, in that king’s reign, began to send legates hither.

Afterwards he prevailed with King Henry I. to part with the right of

nominating to bishoprics; and, in the reign of King Stephen, he gained

the prerogative of appeals. In the reign of Henry II. he exempted all

clerks from the secular power. This king, at first, strenuously opposed

his innovation; but, after the death of Becket, who, for having

violently opposed the king, was slain by some of the royal adherents,

the pope got such an advantage over the king, that he was never able to

execute the laws he had made. Not long after this, by a general

excommunication of the king and his people, for several years, King John

was reduced to such straits, that he surrendered his kingdoms to the

pope, to receive them again, and hold them of him under a rent of a

thousand marks. In the following reign of Henry III., partly from the

profits of our best Church benefices, and partly from the taxes imposed

by the pope, there went yearly out of the kingdom to Rome £70,000

sterling. But in the reign of Edward I., it was declared by the

parliament, that the pope’s taking upon him to dispose of English

benefices to foreigners, was an encroachment not to be endured; and this

was followed by the statute of _Provisors_ against popish bulls, and

against disturbing any patron, in presenting to a benefice; which was

afterwards enacted in Ireland also.

But the pope’s power received a mortal blow in England, by the

reformation in religion, begun in the reign of Henry VIII.; since which

time, to maintain the pope’s authority here, by writing, preaching, &c.,

was, till lately, made a _premunire_ upon the first conviction, and high

treason upon the second.

POPERY. (See _Church of Rome_, _Council of Trent_, _Romanism_.) By

_Popery_ we mean the peculiar system of doctrine, by adopting which the

Church of Rome separates herself from the rest of the Catholic Church,

and is involved in the guilt of schism. The Church of Rome, or Popery,

has departed from the apostles’ doctrine, by requiring all who

communicate with her to believe, as necessary to salvation,

1st, That that man is accursed who does not kiss, and honour, and

worship the holy images.

2nd, That the Virgin Mary and other saints are to be prayed to.

3rd, That, after consecration in the LORD’S supper, the bread is no

longer bread, and the wine no longer wine.

4th, That the clergyman should be excommunicated who, in the sacrament

of the LORD’S supper, gives the cup to the people.

5th, That they are accursed who say that the clergy may marry.

6th, That there is a purgatory; that is, a place where souls which had

died in repentance are purified by suffering.

7th, That the Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all churches.

8th, That obedience is due from all Churches to the bishop of Rome.

9th, That they are accursed who deny that there are seven sacraments.

From those doctrines, contrary to Scripture and the primitive Church,

have resulted these evil practices.

From the veneration of images has sprung the actual worship of them.

The invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and of other saints, has given

rise to the greatest blasphemy and profaneness.

The bread in the eucharist has been worshipped as though itself were the

eternal GOD.

From the doctrine of purgatory has sprung that of indulgences, and the

practice of persons paying sums of money to the Romish bishops and

clergy, to release the souls of their friends from the fabulous fire of

purgatory.

Popery is a corrupt addition to the truth, and we can give the very

dates of the several corruptions.

_Attrition_, as distinguished from contrition, was first pronounced to

be sufficient.

The priest’s right _intention_ was first pronounced to be indispensable

to the valid participation of the sacraments, and

Judicial _absolution_ was first publicly authorized, by the Council of

Trent, A. D. 1551.

_Auricular confession_ was first enjoined by Innocent III., at the

fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.

_Apocrypha_ received as canonical first at the Council of Trent, A. D.

1547.

Compulsory _celibacy of the clergy_, first enjoined publicly at the

first Council of Lateran, A. D. 1123.

_Communion in one kind only_, first authoritatively sanctioned by the

Council of Constance, A. D. 1414.

Use of _images_ and _relics_ in religious worship, first publicly

affirmed and sanctioned in the second Council of Nice, A. D. 787.

Invocation of saints_, first taught with _authority by the fourth

Council of Constantinople, A. D. 754.

_Papal infallibility_ was utterly unknown to the third Council of

Constantinople, A. D. 680.

_Papal supremacy_, first publicly asserted by the fourth Council of

Lateran, A. D. 1215.

_Prayers in a foreign tongue_, first deliberately sanctioned by the

Council of Trent, were expressly forbidden by the fourth Council of

Lateran, A. D. 1215.

_Purgatory_ and _indulgences_, first set forth by the Council of

Florence, A. D. 1438.

The Roman _number of the sacraments_ was first taught by the Council of

Trent, A. D. 1545.

_Transubstantiation_ was first publicly insisted on by the fourth

Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.

POPPY HEAD. The ornamental finial of a stall end. In design the poppy

heads are extremely various; but they are almost universally made to

assume the outline of the fleur-de-lis, to which not only foliage, but

figures, faces, and whole groups, are made to conform themselves.

PORCH. A part of the church in which anciently considerable portions of

the marriage service and of the baptismal services were performed. Being

commenced here they were finished in the church.

POSTILS. A name anciently given to sermons or homilies. The name sprung

from the fact that these were usually delivered immediately after

reading of the Gospel (quasi _post illa_, sc. _Evangelia_). Also,

printed expositions of Scripture, from the text being first exhibited,

and _post illa_ (after the words of the text) the explication of the

writer.

PRÆMUNIRE, in law, is either taken for a form of writ, or for the

offence whereon the writ of præmunire is granted. The writ in question

is named from its initial words _Præmunire facias_, and it is chiefly

known in ecclesiastical matters from a persecuting use to which it is

applied by the statute of 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20, which enacts, that if the

dean and chapter refuse to elect the person nominated by the king to the

vacant bishopric, or if any archbishop or bishop refuse to confirm or

consecrate him, they shall incur the penalties of the statutes of the

præmunire. These penalties are no less than the following:—From the

moment of conviction, the defendant is out of the king’s protection, his

body remains in prison during the king’s pleasure, and all his goods,

real or personal, are forfeited to the Crown. He can bring no action,

nor recover damages, for the most atrocious injuries, and no man can

safely give him comfort, aid, or relief.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION, THE. (From πρᾶγμα, _business_.) A rescript or answer

of the sovereign, declared by advice of his council, to some college,

order, or body of people, upon their consulting him in some case of

their community.—_Hutman._

Referring to the expression historically, the earliest Pragmatic

Sanction on record is that drawn up by Louis IX., king of France, in

1268, against the encroachments of the Church and Court of Rome. It

related chiefly to the rights of the Gallican Church, with reference to

the elections of bishops and clergy. It was superseded in 1438 by the

Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., which was drawn up at Bourges. This

having re-asserted the rights and privileges claimed for the Gallican

Church under Louis IX., it accorded with the Council of Basle, at that

time sitting, in maintaining that a general council is independent of

the pope, and in asserting that all papal bulls should be null and void

unless they received the consent of the king. It withheld also the

payment of annates. (See _Annates_.) Pope Pius II. succeeded in

obtaining the abrogation of this sanction for a time. But the parliament

of Paris refused to approve the conduct of Louis XI. in setting it

aside, and he was compelled to restore it to its original influential

position. It accordingly remained in full force up to the year 1517,

when it was supplanted by the concordat, which was agreed upon between

Francis I. and Pope Julius II. Although by the concordat privileges were

given and received on both sides, yet the real advantages were on the

side of Rome; which advantages it has ever since been her constant aim

to improve.

PRAISE. A reverent acknowledgment of the perfections of GOD, and of the

blessings flowing from them to mankind, usually expressed in hymns of

gratitude and thanksgiving, and especially in the reception of the holy

eucharist—that “sacrifice of praise, and sublimest token of our joy.”

(See _Eucharist_.)

PRAXEANISTS. (See _Patripassians_.)

PRAYER. The offering up of our desires to GOD for things agreeable to

his will, in the name of CHRIST, by the aid of his SPIRIT, with

confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies. The

necessity of prayer is so universally acknowledged by all who profess

and call themselves Christians, and so clearly enjoined in Scripture,

that to insist upon this duty—this sacred and pleasant exercise to the

renewed in heart—is unnecessary. Prayer is either private or public, and

it implies faith in the particular providence of GOD. The general

providence of GOD acts through what are called the laws of nature. By

his particular providence GOD interferes with those laws, and he hath

promised to interfere in behalf of those who pray in the name of JESUS.

As we are to shape our labours by ascertaining, through the

circumstances under which we are providentially placed, what is the will

of GOD with reference to ourselves; as, for example, the husbandman, the

professional man, the prince, all labour for different things placed

within their reach, and do not labour for that which GOD evidently does

not design for them; so we are to regulate our prayers, and we may take

it as a general rule, that we may pray for that for which we may

lawfully labour, and for that only. And when we pray for what is

requisite and necessary for the body or the soul, we are at the same

time to exert ourselves. Prayer without exertion is a mockery of GOD, as

exertion without prayer is presumption. The general providence of GOD

requires that we should exert ourselves, the particular providence of

GOD that we should pray.

(For public prayer, see _Liturgy_ and _Formulary_.)

PRAYER BOOK. (See _Liturgy_ and _Formulary_.)

PREACHING. Proclaiming or publicly setting forth the truths of religion.

Hence the reading of Scripture to the congregation is one branch of

preaching, and is so denominated in Acts xv. 21. “Moses of old time hath

in every city them that _preach_ him, being _read_ in the synagogues

every sabbath day.” See Archbishop King’s valuable Treatise _On the

Inventions of Men_, in which he demonstrates the extensive sense of

_preaching_, as scripturally used; showing that all public services in

the church are, in a certain sense, preaching. The term is, however,

generally restricted to the delivering of sermons, lectures, &c.

_Article_ XXIII. “It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the

office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the

congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same.

And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen

and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them

in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the LORD’S

vineyard.”

In the same convocation in which subscription in the Thirty-nine

Articles was imposed upon the clergy, it was enjoined, with respect to

preachers: “In the first place, let _preachers_ take care that they

never teach anything in the way of preaching, which they wish to be

retained religiously and believed by the people, except what is

agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and what the

catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from that same

doctrine.”—_Canon. Eccles. Angl._ xix. A. D. 1571.

_Canon 36._ “No person shall be received into the ministry, nor admitted

to any ecclesiastical living, nor suffered to preach, to catechise, or

to be a lecturer or reader of divinity in either university, or in any

cathedral, or collegiate church, city, or market town, parish church,

chapel, or any other place within this realm, except he be licensed

either by the archbishop or by the bishop of the diocese where he is to

be placed, under their hands and seals, or by one of the two

universities under their seal likewise; and except he shall first

subscribe to the three articles concerning the king’s supremacy, the

Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-nine Articles (see _Orders_): and

if any bishop shall license any person without such subscription, he

shall be suspended from giving licences to preach for the space of

twelve months.”

And by the 31 Elizabeth, c. 6. “If any person shall receive or take any

money, fee, reward, or any other profit, directly or indirectly, or any

promise thereof, either to himself or to any of his friends, (all

ordinary and lawfully fees only excepted,) to procure any licence to

preach, he shall forfeit £40.”

After the preacher shall be licensed, then it is ordained as follows:

_Canon 45._ “Every beneficed man, allowed to be a preacher, and residing

on his benefice, having no lawful impediment, shall, in his own cure, or

in some other church or chapel (where he may conveniently) near

adjoining, where no preacher is, preach one sermon every Sunday of the

year; wherein he shall soberly and sincerely divide the word of truth,

to the glory of GOD, and to the best edification of the people.”

_Canon 47._ “Every beneficed man, licensed by the laws of this realm

(upon urgent occasions of other service) not to reside upon his

benefice, shall cause his cure to be supplied by a curate that is a

sufficient and licensed preacher, if the worth of the benefice will bear

it. But whosoever hath two benefices shall maintain a preacher licensed,

in the benefice where he doth not reside, except he preach himself at

both of them usually.”

By _Canon 50_. “Neither the minister, churchwardens, nor any other

officers of the Church, shall suffer any man to preach within their

churches or chapels, but such as by showing their licence to preach

shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorized thereunto, as is

aforesaid.”

_Canon 51._ “The deans, presidents, and residentiaries of any cathedral

or collegiate church shall suffer no stranger to preach unto the people

in their churches, except they be allowed by the archbishop of the

province, or by the bishop of the same diocese, or by either of the

universities; and if any in his sermon shall publish any doctrine either

strange or disagreeing from the word of GOD, or from any of the

Thirty-nine Articles, or from the Book of Common Prayer, the dean or

residents shall by their letters, subscribed with some of their hands

that heard him, so soon as may be, give notice of the same to the bishop

of the diocese, that he may determine the matter, and take such order

therein as he shall think convenient.”

_Canon 52._ “That the bishop may understand (if occasion so require)

what sermons are made in every church of his diocese, and who presume to

preach without licence, the churchwardens and sidesmen shall see that

the names of all preachers which come to their church from any other

place be noted in a book, which they shall have ready for that purpose,

wherein every preacher shall subscribe his name, the day when he

preached, and the name of the bishop of whom he had licence to preach.”

_Canon 53._ “If any preacher shall in the pulpit particularly, or namely

of purpose, impugn or confute any doctrine delivered by any other

preacher in the same church, or in any church near adjoining, before he

hath acquainted the bishop of the diocese therewith, and received order

from him what to do in that case, because upon such public dissenting

and contradicting there may grow much offence and disquietness unto the

people, the churchwardens or party aggrieved shall forthwith signify the

same to the said bishop, and not suffer the said preacher any more to

occupy that place which he hath once abused, except he faithfully

promise to forbear all such matter of contention in the church, until

the bishop hath taken further order therein; who shall with all

convenient speed so proceed therein, that public satisfaction may be

made in the congregation where the offence was given. Provided, that if

either of the parties offending do appeal, he shall not be suffered to

preach _pendente lite_.”

_Canon 55._ “Before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers

and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in this

form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may: Ye shall

pray for CHRIST’S Holy Catholic Church,” &c. (See _Bidding Prayer_.)

PREBEND. (Lat. _Præbenda_.) The stipend which is received by a

prebendary, from the revenues of the cathedral or collegiate church with

which he is connected. It denoted originally any stipend or reward,

given out of the ecclesiastical revenues, to a person who had by his

labours procured benefit to the Church; and the gratuity which was given

either to a proctor or advocate, or any other person of the like kind.

When the cathedral churches became well endowed, they left off receiving

the income of their lands into one common bank, and dividing it among

the members, but parcelled out the lands into several shares,

appropriating them for the maintenance of each single clergyman who

resided about the cathedral, calling it _Præbenda_, or _Corpus

Præbendæ_, the _Corps of the Prebend_. Hence arose the difference

between a _prebend_ and a _canonry_. A _canonry_ was a right which a

person had in a church, to be deemed a member thereof, to have the right

of a stall therein, and of giving a vote in the chapter; but a _prebend_

was a right to receive certain revenues appropriated to his place. The

number of prebends in the several cathedral churches was increased by

the benefactions of respective founders; oftentimes out of the revenues

of the rural clergy, and oftentimes by exonerating the lands of prebends

from paying tithes to the ministers of the parishes where they

lay.—_Nicholls._

PREBENDARY. A clergyman attached to a cathedral or collegiate church,

who enjoys a _prebend_ in consideration of his officiating at stated

times in the church. (See _Dean and Chapter_.)

In Scotland, there were established by the respective founders in the

colleges of St. Salvador, at St. Andrew’s, and King’s College, Aberdeen,

certain “Prebendaries, or perpetual chaplains, to sing and serve in the

choir” of the chapel. These were, in fact, the same as chaplains in the

choral colleges of England.

PRECENTOR. The leader of a choir. The precentor in almost all cathedrals

of old foundation in England, and very generally on the continent, was

the first dignitary in the chapter, ranking next to the dean. In some

few instances the archdeacons preceded him. He superintended the choral

service, and the choristers; and in Paris the precentor of Notre Dame

had the supervision of the lesser schools in the city, as the chancellor

had of the greater. In all the new foundations, except Christ Church in

Dublin, where he is a dignitary, the precentor is a minor canon: an

anomalous and modern provision. In most ancient cathedrals the precentor

had for his badge of office a silver staff or _baculus_. In choral

colleges the precentor is a chaplain. At Llandaff and St. David’s, till

very lately, the precentor was presbyteral head of the chapter.

PRECEPTORIES were manors or estates of the Knights Templars, on which

they erected churches for religious service, and convenient houses for

habitation, and placed some of their fraternity under the government of

one of those more eminent Templars, who had been by the grand master

created “_præceptores templi_,” to take care of the lands and rents in

that place and neighbourhood: these preceptories were only cells to the

Temple, or principal house of the knights, in London. Preceptor was the

title of the head of some old hospitals.

PRECES. A general word for prayers; but it is often applied in a

technical sense to the shorter sentences, as versicles and suffrages

which are said in the way of verse and response. In the English choral

service the term is limited to those versicles (with the Gloria Patri)

immediately preceding the Psalms, beginning “O LORD, open thou our

lips.” These anciently formed a regular part of the harmonized

_services_ for cathedral choirs, which were set to music by an earlier

musician.—_Jebb._ (See _Responses_, _Versicles_, and _Service_.)

PREDESTINATION. (See _Election_; see also _Calvinism_ and

_Arminianism_.) Of predestination and election our 17th Article thus

speaks: “Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of GOD,

whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath

constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse

and damnation those whom he hath chosen in CHRIST out of mankind, and to

bring them by CHRIST to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to

honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of

GOD, be called according to GOD’S purpose, by his SPIRIT working in due

season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely;

they be made sons of GOD by adoption; they be made like the image of his

only-begotten SON JESUS CHRIST; they walk religiously in good works; and

at length, by GOD’S mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the

godly consideration of predestination and our election in CHRIST is full

of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such

as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of CHRIST, mortifying

the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their

mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly

establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed

through CHRIST, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards

GOD: so, for curious and carnal persons lacking the Spirit of CHRIST, to

have continually before their eyes the sentence of GOD’S predestination,

is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the devil doth thrust them either

into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less

perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive GOD’S promises

in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture:

and, in our doings, that will of GOD is to be followed, which we have

expressly declared unto us in the Word of GOD.”

Such is the barrier which the Church places between this solemn subject

and irreverent inquiries; but the Scripture doctrine of predestination

may be further stated without any forgetfulness of the spirit here

inculcated. We are told indeed by the Church, that “the godly

consideration of predestination and our election in CHRIST is full of

sweet and unspeakable comfort to godly persons” (Art. xvii.); and it is

certain that it can be full neither of profit nor of comfort, unless we

meditate upon it. And if it be among the things “hard to be understood,”

(2 Pet. iii. 16,) this is no reason why we should not try to understand

it, and, by understanding, cease to be “unlearned and unstable,” and so

take care that it shall _not_ be wrested to our destruction.

In the first chapter to the Ephesians, we find that there are certain

persons whom GOD hath chosen in CHRIST, before the foundation of the

world; having predestinated them unto the adoption of children of JESUS

CHRIST to himself, not on account of their good works, but according to

the good pleasure of his will. (Eph. i. 4, 5.) Again, in another

Epistle, we are told that GOD hath “called us with a holy calling, not

according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,

which was given us in CHRIST JESUS before the world began.” (2 Tim. i.

9.) These are persons whose names are said to have been written in

heaven, in the book of life, called the LAMB’S book of life, (Rev. xx.

15; xxi. 27,) because the first among GOD’S elect is he who, being GOD

as well as man, is the Lamb of GOD, slain from the foundation of the

world (Rev. xiii. 8) as a propitiation for sins. (1 John ii. 2; iv. 10.)

Thus, then, we see that there are persons who, in the words of St. Paul,

are “vessels which GOD hath afore prepared unto glory.” (Rom. ix.

22–24.)

And now comes the question, _Who_ are those who are thus predestinated

to the glories of the new heaven, the new earth, the new Jerusalem,

which is to come down from above? (Rev. xxi. 2.) Let St. Paul give the

answer: “Whom he did predestinate, them he also called” (Rom. viii. 30):

called by the circumstances under which he providentially placed them,

either by the appearance, in the first ages, of an apostle or an

evangelist; or, as is the case with us, by the fact of our being born in

a Christian land: “and whom he called, them he also justified;”

receiving them, for CHRIST’S sake, as his own children in holy baptism,

he justified, or, for the same SAVIOUR’S sake, counted as holy, those

who as yet were not actually so: “and whom he justified, them he also

glorified.” He glorified them by regenerating them, and making them

temples of the HOLY GHOST (1 Cor. vi. 11, 19); than which what greater

glory can pertain to the sons of men?

The foregoing passage furnishes us with a description of Christians, of

baptized persons; and consequently to Christians we are to refer those

other passages which relate to GOD’S predestination: _them_ GOD hath

predestinated to glory. And as such, as GOD’S elect people,

predestinated not merely to means of grace, for this were clearly

inadequate, but to glory in the kingdom of glory, the inspired writers

were wont to address the multitude of the baptized. Thus the apostle

addresses the Church of the Thessalonians, good and bad commingled, as

“knowing” their “election of GOD.” (1 Thess. i. 4.) Thus St. Peter

speaks of “the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia,

Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” as “elect according to the

foreknowledge of GOD the FATHER” (1 Pet. i. 2); and he speaks of them

afterwards as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a

peculiar people;” and St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, addresses

the Hebrews, meaning those who had made profession of the Christian

faith, as “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.” Such,

then, is our blessing, our privilege, our high hope as Christians. In

the temple of the first Jerusalem there was a variety of chambers or

mansions, employed for different purposes, though all relating directly

or indirectly to the services of the sanctuary. In the new Jerusalem,

which will itself be the temple of the universe, there will in like

manner be “many mansions” or chambers: but if so, those mansions or

chambers in the earthly Jerusalem having been intended for a variety of

different offices, we may conclude that offices of different characters

will exist in the new Jerusalem. It is very possible that we are not

only each of us predestined to heaven, but predestined also each to our

own particular place in heaven, that our very mansion is fixed. We know

that GOD has predestinated particular persons to particular offices here

on earth, long before their birth: as, for example, in the case of

Jeremiah, GOD saith, “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee;

and before thou camest forth of the womb, I sanctified thee, and

ordained thee a prophet unto the nation.” And so with respect also to

St. Paul, we are told that it “pleased GOD to separate him from his

mother’s womb, that he might preach CHRIST among the heathen.” (Gal. i.

15, 16.) Nay, we find that this is really to be the case with respect to

the next world, in some cases at least; for example, when the SON of man

shall sit on the throne of his glory, the apostles shall sit on twelve

thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28): a

particular office is allotted to them; to a particular office they are

predestinated. When the mother of Zebedee’s children prayed that her

children might sit, the one on the right hand, and the other on the

left, in our LORD’S kingdom of glory, our LORD said, “to sit on my right

hand and on my left, is not mine to give.” (Matt. xx. 23.) No. These

places are designed for certain persons who are preparing, or shall be

prepared, to fill the same. This is already fixed in the counsels of

GOD. These places, therefore, are not mine to give. They are already

given. Your place is also designated: prepare for it by doing your duty.

We know that some of the saints are predestinated to a mysterious

office, the nature of which we cannot understand, but they will judge

angels. (1 Cor. vi. 2, 3.) And at the last day shall the King say unto

them that are on his right hand, “Come, ye blessed of my FATHER, inherit

the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt.

xxv. 34.)

But this predestination to glory is, like our election, conditional. We

shall not only be saved, but we shall occupy a predestined post of

glory, _if_ we escape condemnation at the day of judgment; not

otherwise. The omission of all reference to the day of judgment is the

vice of the Calvinistic system. The man, condemned at the day of

judgment, will find an addition to his pangs, by knowing the glory to

which he had been predestined, had he not perverted his ways. But if our

sins are then found blotted out by the blood of the LAMB, we know that a

certain place in heaven is designed for us, for which we are shaped and

prepared by the circumstances under which we are placed while on earth.

(See _Bishop Pearson’s_ 23 and 24 _Lectiones “de Prædestinatione” in

Archdeacon Churton’s edition of his minor Works_.)

PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, OUR LORD. (See _Generation_.) His existence

before he was born of the Virgin Mary, and even before the creation of

the world by him. The fact is stated thus by Bishop Bull in his “Defence

of the Nicene Creed:”—All the catholic doctors of the first three

centuries taught, that JESUS CHRIST, he who was afterwards so called,

existed before he became man, or before he was born, according to the

flesh, of the Blessed Virgin, in another nature, far more excellent than

the human nature; that he appeared to holy men, giving them an earnest,

as it were, of his incarnation; that he always presided over, and

provided for, the Church, which in time to come he would redeem with his

own blood; and of consequence that, from the beginning, the whole order

or thread of the Divine dispensation, as Tertullian speaks, ran through

him: further yet, that he was with the FATHER before the foundations of

the world, and that by him all things were made.

PREFACES. Certain short occasional forms in the Communion Service, which

are introduced by the priest, on particular festivals, immediately

before the anthem, beginning, “Therefore with angels and archangels,”

&c. This anthem is a song of praise, or an act of profound adoration,

equally proper at all times; but the Church calls upon us more

especially to use it on her chief festivals, in remembrance of those

events which are then celebrated. Thus, on Christmas Day, the priest

having said—“It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we

should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O LORD,

Holy FATHER, Almighty, everlasting GOD,”—adds the proper preface which

assigns the reason for peculiar thankfulness on that particular day,

viz. “_Because_ thou didst give JESUS CHRIST, thine only SON, to be born

as at this time for us; who, by the operation of the HOLY GHOST, was

made very man, of the Virgin Mary his mother, and that without spot of

sin, to make us clean from all sin: _therefore_, with angels, &c.” The

days for which these prefaces are provided are, Christmas, Easter,

Ascension, and seven days after each of these festivals; also

Whitsunday, and six days after; together with Trinity Sunday. The

antiquity of such prefaces may be estimated from the fact that they are

mentioned and enjoined by the 103rd canon of the African code, which

code was formed of the decisions of many councils prior to the date of

418.

The decay of devotion let fall the apostolical and primitive use of

daily and weekly communions, and the people in the later ages did not

receive but at the greater festivals: upon which custom there were added

to the general preface mentioned, before some special prefaces relating

to the peculiar mercy of that feast on which they did communicate, the

Church thinking it fit, that, since every festival was instituted to

remember some great mercy, therefore they who received on such a day,

besides the general praises offered for all GOD’S mercies, should at the

LORD’S table make a special memorial of the mercy proper to that

festival; and this seemed so rational to our reformers, that they have

retained those proper prefaces which relate to Christmas, Easter,

Ascension Day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday, so as to praise GOD for

the mercies of CHRIST’S birth, resurrection, and ascension, for the

sending the HOLY GHOST, and for the true faith of the holy

TRINITY.—_Dean Comber._

Our LORD himself, before he brake the bread and distributed it, gave

thanks; and the Church has thought fit to do the same thing. But,

because our LORD has not prescribed any set form for this, but used one

agreeable to the thing and the time, the Church therefore, as matters

and occasion required, has accordingly adapted peculiar forms of prayer

and thanksgiving, suited, as St. Augustine says, to the diversity of

festival days, in which different benefits are commemorated.—_Bp.

Cosin._

On the greater festivals there are proper prefaces appointed, which are

also to be repeated, in case there be a communion, for seven days after

the festivals themselves (excepting that of Whitsunday, which is to be

repeated only six days after, because Trinity Sunday, which is the

seventh, hath a preface peculiar to itself); to the end that the mercies

may be the better remembered by often repetition, and also that all the

people (who in most places cannot communicate all in one day) may have

other opportunities, within those eight days, to join in praising GOD

for such great blessings.

2. The reason of the Church’s lengthening out these high feasts for

several days is plain: the subject-matter of them is of so high a

nature, and so nearly concerns our salvation, that one day would be too

little to meditate upon them, and praise GOD for them as we ought. A

bodily deliverance may justly require one day of thanksgiving and joy;

but the deliverance of the soul by the blessings commemorated on these

times, deserves a much longer time of praise and acknowledgment. Since,

therefore, it would be injurious to Christians to have their joy and

thankfulness for such mercies confined to one day, the Church, upon the

times when these unspeakable blessings were wrought for us, invites us,

by her most seasonable commands and counsels, to fill our hearts with

joy and thankfulness, and let them overflow eight days together.

3. The reason of their being fixed to eight days is taken from the

practice of the Jews, who by GOD’S appointment observed their greater

festivals, some of them for seven, and one, namely, the feast of

Tabernacles, for eight days. And therefore the primitive Church,

thinking that the observation of Christian festivals (of which the

Jewish feasts are only types and shadows) ought not to come short of

them, lengthened out their higher feasts to eight days.—_Bp. Sparrow._

_Wheatly._

These prefaces are very ancient, though there were some of them, as they

stood in the Latin service, of later date. For as there are ten in that

service, whereof the last, concerning the Virgin Mary, was added by Pope

Urban, 1095, so it follows that the rest must be of a more considerable

antiquity. Our Church has only retained five, and those upon the

principal festivals of the year, which relate only to the persons of the

ever-blessed Trinity, and not to any saint.—_Dr. Nicholls._

Mr. Palmer remarks that “the repetition by the people of the portion of

the Preface, beginning ‘therefore with angels,’ never was the custom of

the primitive Church, and could not have been intended by those who

revised our liturgy, nor is it warranted by the nature of the Preface

itself. It has perhaps,” he adds, “arisen from the custom of printing

the latter part of the Preface in connexion with the hymn Tersanctus,

and from the indistinctness of the rubric, which, in fact, gives no

special direction for the people to join in repeating the hymn

_Tersanctus_.” It may be remarked that the _Tersanctus_ is marked as a

separate paragraph in the two books of King Edward VI.

With respect to the Preface, there is an ambiguity in our rubrics, but

none whatever in the choral usage, which is in accordance with the

universal practice of the Church. The Preface is that part recited by

the priest, beginning with “_It is very meet, right_,” &c., ending with

“evermore praising thee and saying.” It is commonly imagined that the

choir or congregation are to repeat with the priest the words,

“Therefore with angels and archangels,” &c.; but this is contrary to all

precedent. The choral communion services, and the one of Durham, all

agree in beginning the hymn at the words, “Holy, holy, holy,” &c. The

rubric merely says, “After each of which Prefaces shall immediately be

sung or said;” it does not say by whom. The direction is as

indeterminate as that of the Litany, which, like the passage in

question, is sung distributively between minister and people in

sequence.—_Jebb._

PRELATE. An ecclesiastic having jurisdiction over other ecclesiastics.

The title, though applicable to bishops, is not confined to their order.

Before the Reformation abbots were styled prelates. Archdeacons are

prelates in this sense of the word. (See _Episcopacy_, _Bishop_.)

PRELECTOR. A Lecturer. In the cathedral of Hereford, one of the

prebendaries is elected to the office of Prelector, to hold it till he

succeeds to a residentiary canonry, for which he is statutably

considered to have a claim to be a candidate. His duty is to preach on

Tuesdays, or else on any holiday which may occur during the week for a

considerable portion of the year.

PREMONSTRATENSES. (_Lat._) In French, _Prémontrés_. A religious order,

founded by St. Norbert, descended from a noble family in the diocese of

Cologne. He was educated suitably to his quality, and lived for some

time at the emperor Henry the Fifth’s court. At about thirty years of

age he was ordained deacon and priest; and, soon after, entering upon a

very strict and mortified way of living, he resigned his church

preferments, and distributed a large patrimonial estate to the poor.

Then he embraced the rule of St. Augustine, and retiring with thirteen

companions to a place called Premonstratum, in the diocese of Laon, in

Picardy, he there began his order, about the year 1119. This ground,

with the chapel of St. John Baptist, was given to St. Norbert by the

bishop of Laon, with the approbation of Louis le Gros, king of France,

who gave the Premonstratenses a charter of privileges. The place was

called Premonstratum, because it was pretended the Blessed Virgin

herself pointed out (premonstravit) this place for the principal house

of the order, and at the same time commanded them to wear a white habit.

The monks of this order were, at first, so poor, that they had nothing

they could call their own but one poor ass, which served them to carry

wood, which they cut down every morning and sent to Laon, where it was

sold to purchase bread. But, in a short time, they received so many

donations, and built so many monasteries, that, thirty years after the

foundation of this order, they had above one hundred abbeys in France

and Germany.

The popes and kings of France have granted many privileges, and been

very liberal, to the Premonstratenses. Besides a great number of saints,

who have been canonized, this order has had several persons of

distinguished birth, who have been contented with the humble condition

of lay-brothers: as, Guy, earl of Brienne; Godfrey, earl of Namur, &c.

It has likewise given the Church a great number of archbishops and

bishops.

The order of Premonstratenses increased so greatly, that it had

monasteries in all parts of Christendom, amounting to 1000 abbeys, 300

provostships, a vast number of priories, and 500 nunneries. These were

divided into 30 cyrcaries or provinces. But this number of houses is

greatly diminished; for, of 65 abbeys it had in Italy, there is not one

remaining at present; not to mention the loss of all their monasteries

in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, Scotland, and Ireland.

These monks, vulgarly called White Canons, came first into England in

the year 1146, where their first monastery, called New House, was built

in Lincolnshire, by Peter de Saulia, and dedicated to St. Martialis. In

the reign of Edward I., when that king granted his protection to the

monasteries, the Premonstratenses had twenty-seven houses in this

kingdom.

PREROGATIVE COURT. The Prerogative Court of the archbishops of

Canterbury and Armagh, is that court wherein all testaments are proved,

and all administrations granted, when a party dying within the province

has _bona notubilia_ in some other diocese than where he dies; and is so

called from having a _prerogative_ throughout the whole province for the

said purposes. (See Canons 92, 93, &c.)

PRE-SANCTIFIED. A word used by the Greek Church, who have a liturgy

called that of the _Presanctified_, because that upon those days they do

not consecrate the bread or wine, but receive the bread which was

consecrated the day before. This service is observed all Lent long,

except Saturdays and Sundays, and the Annunciation of the Blessed

Virgin, which, being festivals, are exempt from fasting; the Greeks

being of opinion that the whole communion service is not to be

celebrated on fasting days, and upon this account charging the Latin

Church with breach of the canons, because they celebrate the eucharist

in Lent time, as they do the rest of the year, Good Friday excepted; for

on that day this liturgy of the Presanctified is offered in the Latin

Church; the priest then consecrating neither bread nor wine, but making

use of the bread which was consecrated the day before, and communicating

only under one kind; for the wine he receives is only for ablution,

being unconsecrated. The Greeks do the same thing, from whence we may

conclude that they communicate only in one kind during Lent, the wine

that they then receive being not consecrated. The Communion of the Sick,

as enjoined by the First Book of King Edward, if administered on any day

of public communion, was a liturgy of the pre-sanctified; as the

elements were not consecrated in the private house, but previously in

the church.

PRESBYTER. (See _Bishop_, _Deacon_, _Priest_, _Orders_, _Clergy_.) The

name πρεσβύτερος (_elder_) is a word borrowed from the Greek translation

of the Old Testament, which commonly signifies a ruler or governor,

being, as St. Jerome observes, a name of office, not a mere indication

of a man’s age; for elders were chosen, not by their age, but by their

merits and wisdom. So that, as a senator among the Romans, and an

alderman in our own language, signifies a person of such an order and

station without any regard to age, in like manner a _presbyter_ or

_elder_ in the Christian Church is one who is ordained to a certain

office, and authorized by his quality, not his age, to discharge the

several duties of that office and station in which he is placed. In this

large and extensive sense, bishops were sometimes called _presbyters_ in

the New Testament, for the apostles themselves did not refuse that

title. On the other hand, it is the opinion of many learned men, both

ancient and modern, that presbyters were sometimes called _bishops_,

while bishops who were properly such were distinguished by other titles,

as that of _chief priests_, _apostles_, &c. Bingham shows, however, that

those who maintained the identity of the names, did not thence infer

identity of offices, but always esteemed bishops and presbyters to be

distinct officers.

We know not the exact period at which the apostles first ordained

presbyters. We do not read of their existence before A. D. 43, when the

disciples at Antioch sent their collections to the presbyters of Judea.

About A. D. 56, St. Paul sent for “the presbyters of the church” of

Ephesus; and we afterwards read of bishops or presbyters at Philippi:

and the directions to Timothy and Titus for their ordination in every

city; the exhortation of St. Peter to “the presbyters;” and of St.

James, “is any one sick among you, let him send for the presbyters of

the church;” suffice to prove the general ordination of presbyters by

the apostles.

The office of presbyters, like that of bishops, consisted in “feeding

the Church of GOD,” and overseeing it; exhorting and convincing the

gainsayers by sound doctrine. Being invested with the power of teaching,

they also possessed authority in controversies. The Church of Antioch

sent to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and “presbyters” on the

question of circumcision; and we find afterwards that heretics were

sometimes condemned by the judgment of presbyters, as well as by bishops

in councils. They possessed in their degree the power of remitting or

retaining sins by absolution, and by spiritual censures. They must, even

at the beginning, have had the power of baptizing and celebrating the

eucharist, of performing other rites, and offering up public prayers in

the absence of the apostles, or by their permission; and the institution

of bishops in every Church by the apostles only restrained the ordinary

exercise of these powers. We know in particular from St. James, that

presbyters had authority to visit the sick and offer prayers, anointing

them with oil for the recovery of their health. From the time of the

apostles, the office of public teaching in the Church, and of

administering the sacraments, was always performed by the bishop, unless

in cases of great necessity. The power of spiritual jurisdiction in each

Church, of regulating its affairs generally, and especially its

discipline, was shared by the bishop with the presbyters, who also

instructed and admonished the people in private. The presbyters sat on

seats or thrones at the east end of the church, and the bishop on a

higher throne in the midst of them. In some churches they laid their

hands with the bishops on the head of those who were ordained

presbyters, and in others administered confirmation.

The wealth and temporal power of bishops during the middle ages may have

induced some of the ignorant to suppose that presbyters were exceedingly

inferior to bishops; but the Catholic Church, which sees with the eye of

faith, as she acknowledges the same sacred dignity of the priesthood in

every bishop, whether oppressed with extreme poverty, or whether

invested with princely dignity and wealth, also views the greatness and

the sanctity of the office of presbyter as little inferior to those even

of the chief pastors who succeeded the apostles; and the Church has

never flourished more, nor has the episcopate ever been held in truer

reverence, than under the guidance of those apostolical prelates who,

like St. Cyprian, resolved to do nothing without the consent of the

clergy, and who have sedulously avoided even the appearance of “being

lords over GOD’S heritage.” The spirit of a genuine Christianity will

lead the presbyters to reverence and obey the bishops as their fathers;

and will induce bishops to esteem the presbyters as fellow-workers

together with them, and brethren in JESUS CHRIST.—_Bingham._ _Palmer._

_Augusti._

The word _presbyter_ is substituted for _priest_ in the Scotch liturgy,

compiled in the reign of King Charles I.

PRESBYTERIANS. A Protestant sect, which maintains that there is no order

in the Church superior to presbyters, and on that account has separated

from the Catholic Church. This sect is established by law in Scotland,

where there nevertheless exists a national branch of the Catholic

Church, under canonical bishops. The establishment of a sect cannot, of

course, convert that sect into a Church: for instance, if the Socinian

sect were established in England, it would not be a whit more a Church

than it is at present. (See _Church in Scotland_.)

The Presbyterians had many endowed chapels in England, but the trustees

and ministers having become Socinians, these endowed chapels, upwards of

170 in number, are the strongholds of Socinianism and Rationalism in

this country. In England, Socinian and Presbyterian have thus become

synonymous terms. These observations do not, however, apply to the

meeting-houses in England of the Scotch Presbyterians.

The following statement is taken from the Registrar’s return:

“The Scottish Kirk adopts the Confession, Catechism, and Directory

prepared by the Westminster Assembly as its standards of belief and

worship. Its discipline is administered by a series of four courts or

assemblies. (1.) The _Kirk Session_ is the lowest court, and is composed

of the minister of a parish and a variable number of lay elders,

appointed from time to time by the session itself. (2.) The _Presbytery_

consists of representatives from a certain number of contiguous

parishes, associated together in one district. The representatives are

the ministers of all such parishes and one lay elder from each. This

assembly has the power of ordaining ministers and licensing probationers

to preach, before their ordination: it also investigates charges

respecting the conduct of members, approves of new communicants, and

pronounces excommunication against offenders. An appeal, however, lies

to the next superior court; viz. (3.) The _Provincial Synod_, which

comprises several presbyteries, and is constituted by the ministers and

elders by whom these presbyteries themselves were last composed. (4.)

The _General Assembly_ is the highest court, and is composed of

representatives (ministers and elders) from the presbyteries, royal

burghs, and universities of Scotland, to the number (at present) of 363;

of which number rather more than two-fifths are laymen.

“The National Church of Scotland has three presbyteries in England; that

of _London_, containing five congregations,—that of _Liverpool and

Manchester_, containing three congregations,—and that of the _North of

England_, containing eight congregations.

“Various considerable secessions have from time to time occurred in

Scotland from the National Church, of bodies which, while holding

Presbyterian sentiments, dissent from the particular mode in which they

are developed by the Established Kirk, especially protesting against the

mode in which Church patronage is administered, and against the undue

interference of the civil power. The principal of these seceding bodies

are,—the ‘_United Presbyterian Church_,’ and the ‘_Free Church of

Scotland_;’ the former being an amalgamation (effected in 1847) of the

‘Secession Church’ (which separated in 1732) with the ‘Relief Synod’

(which seceded in 1752); and the latter having been constituted in 1843.

“The ‘_United Presbyterian Church_’ has five presbyteries in England,

containing seventy-six congregations; of which, however, fourteen are

locally in Scotland, leaving the number locally in England 62.

“The ‘_Free Church of Scotland_’ has no ramifications, under that name,

in England; but various Presbyterian congregations which accord in all

respects with that community, and which, before the disruption of 1843,

were in union with the Established Kirk, compose a separate Presbyterian

body under the appellation of the ‘_Presbyterian Church in England_,’

having, in this portion of Great Britain, seven presbyteries and

eighty-three congregations.”

PRESBYTERIUM, or PRESBYTERY, the space in collegiate and large churches

between the easternmost stalls of the choir and the altar; answering to

the _solea_ of the ancient basilicas.

PRESENCE. (See _Real Presence_.)

PRESENTATION, (see _Patron_ and _Benefice_,) is the offering of a clerk

to the bishop by the patron of a benefice. It differs from nomination in

this, that while presentation signifies the offering a clerk to the

bishop for institution, nomination signifies offering a clerk to the

patron in order that he may be presented.

PRIEST. (See _Orders_, _Ordination_, _Presbyter_, _Sacrifice_, and

_Absolution_.) Who can deny that our word _priest_ is corrupted of

_presbyter_? Our ancestors, the Saxons, first used _preoster_; whence,

by further contraction, came _preste_ and _priest_. The High and Low

Dutch have _priester_; the French, _prestre_ [now contracted into

_prêtre_]; the Italian, _prete_; but the Spaniard only speaks full,

_presbytero_.—_Joseph Mede._

The Greek and Latin words, (ἱερεύς, _sacerdos_,) which we translate

“_priest_,” are derived from words that signify holy: and so the word

_priest_, according to the etymology, signifies him whose mere charge

and function is about holy things; and therefore seems to be a most

proper word to him who is set apart to the holy public service and

worship of GOD, especially when he is in the actual ministration of holy

things. If it be objected that, according to the usual acceptation of

the word, it signifies him that offers up a _sacrifice_, and therefore

cannot be allowed to a minister of the gospel, who hath no sacrifice to

offer, it is answered, that the ministers of the gospel have sacrifices

to offer, (1 Pet. ii. 5,) “Ye are built up a spiritual house, an holy

priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices” of prayer, praises,

thanksgiving, &c. In respect of these, the ministers of the gospel may

safely, in a metaphorical sense, be called priests; and in a more

eminent manner than other Christians, because they are taken from among

men to offer up these sacrifices for others. But besides these spiritual

sacrifices mentioned, the ministers of the gospel have another sacrifice

to offer, viz. the “unbloody sacrifice,” as it was anciently called, the

commemorative sacrifice of the blood of CHRIST, which does as really and

truly show forth the death of CHRIST, as those sacrifices under the law

did; and in respect of this sacrifice of the eucharist, the ancients

have usually called those that offer it up, priests.—_Fludyer’s Comm._

That it might not be doubted by whom the form of absolution may be

pronounced, the rubric expressly informs us, that it is the priest who

officiates. By _priest_, in Church language, is understood a person who

is advanced in the ecclesiastical orders to the dignity of a presbyter;

and no person, in any age of the Church, who was under this degree, did

ever pretend, as of right, to pronounce absolution. The penitentiaries,

in the ancient and more modern ages of the Church, were always of this

degree. It was adopted into an axiom in the canon law, “_ejus est

absolvere cujus est ligare_.” No one could pronounce absolution but he

who had power to excommunicate. In the body of that law, absolutions of

all kinds are reserved either to presbyters or bishops; and in our

provincial constitutions it is strictly enjoined, “_de pœnitentia

præcipimus quod diaconi pœnitentias dare non presumant_,” unless the

priest be away when a man is dying.—_Lyndwood._ Our Church, in the last

review of the liturgy, has chosen to put in the word _priest_ instead of

_minister_, (which was in King Edward VI.’s Second Book, and in Queen

Elizabeth’s,) to the end that no one might pretend to pronounce this but

one in priest’s orders; being sensible that some bold innovations have

been made herein, by reason of some persons misunderstanding or

misapplying the word _minister_. But the first compilers of the Common

Prayer understood the same by _minister_ as we do now by _priest_, that

being the general acceptation of the word at that time. The compilers of

the Second Book of Edward VI. (in which the Confession and Absolution

were first inserted) put into the rubric, “to be pronounced by the

minister” (or priest) “_alone_,” to avoid the imputation which the

Papists had charged some of the reformed with, for permitting absolution

to be pronounced by persons not of this order. For in the provincial

Council of Sens, A. D. 1528, which was before that of Trent, and twenty

years before the compiling our Common Prayer, we find the Protestants

found fault with for affirming, that laics and women among them might

pronounce absolution; which indeed was Luther’s opinion, but only so (as

Chemnitius explains it) that in case of extreme necessity they might use

it; which doctrine he had from the Papists themselves.—_Nicholls_; and

see his long note on the subject, if necessary, in his “Commentary on

the Common Prayer,” Evening Service.

In the diocese of Alexandria, the privilege of giving absolution to

great criminals and scandalous offenders was reserved to the patriarch;

as appears in the case of Lamponianus, an excommunicated presbyter.

“Though,” says he, “he expressed his repentance with tears, and the

people interceded for him, yet I refused to absolve him; only assuring

this, that if he should be in manifest danger of death, any presbyter

should receive him into communion by my order.” And in general, in the

primitive Church, the granting absolution to reconcile penitents, was

the bishop’s sole prerogative, and rarely committed to presbyters; but

never to deacons, except in cases of extreme necessity, when neither

bishop nor presbyter was at hand.—_Bingham._

The privilege was also allowed in times of persecution, to martyrs and

confessors in prison; but then they always signified what they had done

to the bishop.—See _Cave’s Prim. Ch._

At the last review of the Common Prayer Book, A. D. 1661, the

Presbyterian divines requested that “as the word _minister_, and not

priest or curate, is used in the Absolution, and in divers other places,

it may throughout the whole book be so used, instead of those two

words.” To which the Episcopalian commissioners replied, that “it is not

reasonable the word _minister_ should be only used in the liturgy. For

since some parts of the liturgy may be performed by a deacon, and

others, such as absolution and consecration, by none under the order of

a _priest_, it is fit that some such word as priest should be used for

those offices, and not _minister_, which signifies at large every one

that ministers in that holy office, of what order soever he be.”

Accordingly the word “_priest_,” in its exclusive sense, and in

contradistinction to the word _deacon_, was inserted, and the sense of

the Church of England on this subject, ascertained through the objection

made by the Presbyterian divines, was adopted and ratified by the act of

parliament.

In the primitive Church, the deacons were ranked among the “sacred

orders;” and though their office has not always been so accurately

defined as that of the presbyters, or priests, yet in the Church of

England they are to most purposes considered as an inferior degree of

“_the priesthood_.” Their duties are laid down in the office of “the

Form and Manner of making Deacons;” and, “for the resolution of all

doubts,” the preface to the Book of Common Prayer has wisely directed,

that “the parties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall

always resort to the bishop of the diocese, who by his discretion shall

take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; so that the same

order be not contrary to anything contained in this book.”

It has generally been customary for deacons to substitute a prayer taken

from the liturgy, which has been usually one of the collects in the

conclusion of the Communion Service; and a pious commentator (Mr. Waldo)

countenances this by saying, “a deacon, when he officiates, is never to

use it, but is to offer up some short prayer in its stead.” But this is

improperly said. For if a deacon, an officiating minister of the lowest

order, may be considered at liberty to make this alteration in breach of

the act for uniformity, where is the point at which he shall stop? What

in this case he should do seems settled by the authorities referred to

by Shepherd.

“If a deacon is neither to read the Absolution, nor to substitute a

prayer in its room, what is he to do? The rule is plain, and leaves him

no alternative. After the confession, he is to remain kneeling, and to

proceed to the LORD’S Prayer. This always appeared to me to be the

necessary and only conclusion to be drawn from the premises. Suspecting,

however, the validity of my own arguments, I requested the opinion of a

respectable divine, for whose modesty I have such regard, that I dare

describe him only as having been, for many years, the confidential and

intimate friend of Bishop Lowth. By his judgment, the opinion already

given was sanctioned and confirmed. In consequence of further inquiry, I

have since learned, that the heads of a cathedral church lately

recommended the same practice. It is the business of priest vicars, I

understand, in some cathedrals, to read morning and evening prayer; and

it once happened, that a deacon was appointed a priest vicar. When it

came to his turn to officiate, he was directed to omit the Absolution,

and after the confession to say the LORD’S Prayer.”—_Shepherd._

PRIEST’S INTENTION. (See _Intention_.)

PRIMATES, or METROPOLITANS. In the Christian hierarchy, or scheme of

Church government, are such bishops of a province, as preside over the

rest.

Some derive the original of primates or metropolitans from apostolical

constitution.—_Bingham, Orig. Eccles._ b. ii. c. 16. But it may be

doubted, whether the apostles made any such general settlement in every

province; and the records of the original of most churches being lost,

it can never be proved that they did. It is most probable, that this

order of bishops commenced not long after the apostolic age, when sects

and schisms began to break in apace, and controversies multiplying

between particular bishops, it was found necessary to pitch upon one in

every province, to whom the decision of cases might be referred, and by

whom all common and public affairs might be directed. Or, it might take

its rise from that common respect and deference, which was usually paid

by the rest of the bishops to the bishop of the metropolis, or capital

city, of each province: which advancing into a custom, was afterwards

settled by a canon of the Council of Nice.—_Conc. Nic._ c. 6.

As to the offices and privileges of primates or metropolitans, they were

as follows. First, they were to regulate the elections of all their

provincial bishops, and either ordain, or authorize the ordination of

them: and no election or ordination of bishops was valid without their

approbation. Nor was this power at all infringed by setting up the

patriarchs above them. For, though the metropolitans were to be ordained

by the patriarchs, yet still the right of ordaining their own suffragans

was preserved to them. It is to be observed, that this power was not

arbitrary: for the primates had no negative voice in the matter, but

were to be determined and concluded by the major part of a provincial

synod.—_Conc. Chalced._ Act. 16.

Their next office was, to preside over the provincial bishops, and, if

any controversies arose among them, to interpose their authority to end

and decide them: also to hear the accusations of others, who complained

of injury done to them by their own bishops, from whom there was always

liberty of appeal to the metropolitan. But still there lay an appeal

from the metropolitan to a provincial synod, of which he was only the

president or moderator.

A third office of the metropolitans or primates was, to call provincial

synods, and preside in them. To this end, their circular letters, called

_Synodicæ_ and _Tractoriæ_, were a legal summons, which no bishop of the

province might disobey under pain of suspension, or other canonical

censure, at the discretion of the metropolitan and council.

Fourthly, it belonged to the primates to publish and disperse such

imperial laws and canons, as were made either by the emperors or the

councils, for the common good of the Church. This gave them a right to

visit, and inquire into neglects, abuses, and disorders, committed by

any bishop throughout the whole province.

Fifthly, bishops, when they travelled into foreign countries on

extraordinary occasions, used to consult the primate, and take his

_Formatæ_, or letters of commendation. This was particularly required of

the African bishops by the third Council of Carthage.

A sixth branch of the metropolitan office was, to take care of all

vacant sees within their province, by administering the affairs of the

Church, securing the revenues of the bishopric, and procuring a speedy

election of a new bishop.

Seventhly, it belonged to the metropolitans, yearly to review the

calculation of the time of Easter, and give notice to their suffragans

of it. The care of composing the cycle was, indeed, by the Nicene

fathers particularly committed to the bishop of Alexandria. But due care

not being always taken in this matter, the metropolitan in every

province was concerned to settle the time, and acquaint the whole

province with it.

The primate of Alexandria was the greatest metropolitan in the world,

both for the absoluteness of his power, and the extent of his

jurisdiction. For he was not metropolitan of a single province, but of

all the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, in which there were

at least six large provinces, out of which above an hundred bishops were

called to a provincial synod.

Besides an actual primacy of power, there was likewise a primacy of

honour; that is, some bishops had the name and title of primates, but

not the jurisdiction. Of these there were three sorts. First, the senior

bishops in each province, next to the metropolitan. These primates had

no power above others, except when the metropolitans were some way

disabled, or disqualified for discharging their office, by irregularity

or suspension. In this case, their power devolved on the senior bishop

of the province.