The second sort of honorary primates were the titular metropolitans, or

bishops of such cities as had the name and title of metropolis bestowed

on them by some emperor, without the privileges, which were still

continued to the ancient metropolis of the province. Of this sort were

the cities of Chalcedon and Nice.

Thirdly, some bishops were honoured with the title of primates, in

regard to the eminency of their see, being some mother-church, or

particularly honoured by ancient prescription. This was the case of the

bishop of Jerusalem, in consideration of its being the mother-church of

the Christian world.

The division of England into two provinces, Canterbury and York, in

1152, gave occasion to the introducing primacies among us. Canterbury,

which before was the metropolis, gives to its bishop the title of

Primate of _all_ England; York, only that of Primate of England.

Accordingly, the former has some jurisdiction over all England, which

the latter has only in his own province.

The archbishop of Armagh is primate of all Ireland; of Dublin, that of

Ireland. Until the late mutilation of the Irish branch of the Church,

the archbishop of Cashel was primate of Munster; of Tuam, primate of

Connaught. The archbishop of St. Andrew’s was primate of Scotland. The

archbishop of Rheims is primate of France; of Rouen, primate of

Normandy; of Lyons, primate of Gaul; of Toledo, primate of Spain, &c.

PRIME. The service said at sunrising. (See _Canonical Hours_.)

PRIMER. (_Primarius_, Lat. A book of primary or elementary instruction.)

Dr. Burton, in his preface to King Henry VIII.’s Three Primers, shows

that the word was in use at least as far back as 1527, when a Primer of

the Salisbury use was printed: and that it was “applied to a first or

elementary book, which was put into the hands of children. The term was,

perhaps, sometimes applied to a mere spelling-book, or to any book which

was used for teaching children to read; but it seems generally to have

conveyed the notion of religious instruction. The lessons were taken

from the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Ave Maria,

or from some other common formulary, with short and easy explanations,

for the use of young beginners, or for private devotion. In course of

time, the word came to have a still more limited meaning, as applied to

offices of religion, and was analogous to the modern term Prayer Book,

with the exception that a Primer was not confined to any one definite

set of prayers, but contained different selections, according to the

choice of the compiler; though the Creed, Pater Noster, and Ave Maria,

always held a prominent place in the Primer.”

The earliest Primer printed by Dr. Burton was in Henry VIII.’s reign, in

1535: “A goodly Primer in English.” This was an improved edition of a

former one, and was one of the first overt advances towards reformation,

though containing much Romish doctrine. It contains, among a great many

other things, an exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the Creed, and

the Offices for the Seven Hours, mainly taken from the old offices. In

1537 appeared the Institution of a Christian Man, a still further

advance; published by authority of convocation. In 1539 appeared a

Primer by Bp. Hilsey of Rochester, the subject, though not the form,

being much the same as in the first-mentioned Primer. In 1545 King Henry

VIII.’s Primer appeared. The services for the Hours in this, formed the

basis for all future Primers, and were much the same as in Queen

Elizabeth’s of 1559. In Edward VI.’s reign appeared, in 1547, a reprint

of Henry VIII.’s Primer. In 1549, 1551, 1552, improved editions, with

omissions of the superstitious invocations of the Virgin Mary. Queen

Elizabeth’s first Primer, 1559, was a reprint of King Edward’s of 1551,

or rather, 1552. The next, in 1566, was altered a good deal from the

form. A second edition was published in 1575. All these had the services

of the Hours, besides Litanies, and other prayers. Some the catechism,

some the penitential psalms, &c. A Latin Form of Prayer, like the

Primer, was published by authority in 1560, and Preces Privatæ, a

distinct, though similar publication, in 1564. The last Primer which

appeared (though not under that name) was Dr. (afterwards Bp.) Cosin’s

“Collection of Private Devotions: in the practice of the ancient Church,

called the Hours of Prayer; as they were after this manner published by

authority of Queen Elizabeth, 1560, &c.” This was published in 1627, by

command of King Charles I. See Mr. Clay’s valuable edition of “_Private

Prayer_,” &c., _during the reign of Elizabeth_, edited for the Parker

Society; and _Dr. Burton’s Three Primers_.

PRIMICERIUS, or _Primmicerius_, defined by Suicer as “_qui in_ primâ

cerâ hæres scriptus,” one who is designated as the principal heir. Hence

it came to signify one who presided over any particular department; the

chief notary, for instance, was called πριμμικήριος νοταρίων: and so the

chief reader, the chief chanter, &c., in great churches. It is the title

of a dignitary in several Italian cathedrals, and is supposed to answer

to our chancellor; a name not used in Italy as that of a cathedral

officer. The precentor of Aberdeen cathedral was anciently called

Primicerius, as Kennedy states in his _Annals of Aberdeen_.

PRIMITIVE CHURCH. (See _Tradition_.) The Church as it existed in the

ages immediately after its first establishment. From its near connexion

with the apostles and other inspired men, the primitive Church enjoyed

many advantages, of which, at later periods, it was deprived. To the

earliest ages we naturally look for illustrations of obscurities in the

New Testament, for evidence and testimony of matter of fact, for sound

interpretations of doctrine, for proofs of the efficacy of the gospel,

and for examples of undaunted Christian heroism. Hence the value we are

accustomed to attach to the writings which have come down to us from the

first three centuries after CHRIST; and this value is considerably

enhanced by the fervour, the beauty, and the surpassing eloquence which

adorned the Church in that early day, and in the ages following. These

were familiarly known to the Reformers of the Church of England; and,

having taken the primitive Church as their model, and as the best

witness of Catholic principles and usages, they transfused its spirit,

not only into the liturgy, but into the whole framework and

superstructure of that venerable fabric they aimed to restore. How well

they succeeded, is evidenced in that fearless appeal which Catholics

ever make, first to the Apostolic Church, then to those who drew their

principles from it along with their infant breath, and flourished and

died in an age when inspiration itself was scarcely extinct. That Church

has nothing to dread which can lay its standards on the altar of

antiquity, and return them to her bosom, signed with the glorious

testimony of a Polycarp, an Ignatius, a Clement, and a “noble army of

martyrs;” nothing has she to dread but the possibility of declension,

and unfaithfulness to her sacred trust.

PRIOR. (See _Monk_.) The head or superior of a convent of monks, or the

second person after the abbot, corresponding nearly to the dean in

churches of secular canons.

PRIORY. (See _Monastery_.) A house occupied by a society of monks or

nuns, the chief of whom was termed a prior or prioress; and of these

there were two sorts: first, where the prior was chosen by the convent,

and governed as independently as any abbot in his abbey; such were the

cathedral priors, and most of those of the Augustine order. Secondly,

where the priory was a cell subordinate to some great abbey, and the

prior was placed or displaced at the will of the abbot. But there was a

considerable difference in the regulation of these cells; for some were

altogether subject to their respective abbots, who sent what officers

and monks they pleased, and took their revenues into the common stock of

the abbeys; whilst others consisted of a stated number of monks, under a

prior sent to them from the superior abbey, and those priories paid a

pension yearly, as an acknowledgment of their subjection, but acted in

other matters as independent bodies, and had the rest of the revenues

for their own use. The priories or cells were always of the same order

as the abbeys on which they depended, though sometimes their inmates

were of a different sex; it being usual, after the Norman Conquest, for

the great abbeys to build nunneries on some of their manors, which

should be subject to their visitation.

_Alien priories_ were cells or small religious houses in our country,

dependent on large foreign monasteries. When manors or tithes were given

to distant religious houses, the monks, either to increase the authority

of their own order, or perhaps rather to have faithful stewards of their

revenues, built convenient houses for the reception of small

fraternities of their body, who were deputed to reside at and govern

those cells.

PRISCILLIANISTS. Certain heretics whose founder was Priscillian, a

Spaniard of noble extraction, very wealthy, and endued with much wit,

learning, and eloquence. Mark, an Egyptian heretic, having sown the

errors of Gnosticism in Gaul, went into Spain, where carnal pleasure,

which was the principal article of his doctrine, procured him quickly a

great many disciples, the chief whereof was Priscillian, who covered his

vanity under the appearance of a profound humility. He taught, besides

the abominations of the Gnostics, that the soul was of the same

substance with GOD, and that, descending to the earth, through seven

heavens, and certain other degrees of principality, it fell into the

hands of the evil one, who put it into the body, which he made to

consist of twelve parts, over each of which presided a celestial sign.

He condemned the eating of the flesh of animals, and marriage as an

unlawful copulation, and separated women from their husbands without

their consent; and, according to his doctrine, man’s will was subject to

the power of the stars. He confounded the holy persons in the TRINITY,

like Sabellius, ordered his followers to fast on Sundays and Christmas

day, because he believed CHRIST had not taken true flesh upon him.

Lying, a most abominable vice, and so contrary to the GOD of truth, was

a thing tolerated amongst his followers. There was a volume composed by

them called _Libra_, because that in the twelve questions in it, as in

twelve ounces, their whole doctrine was explained. Priscillian broached

his heresy in the fourth century. He was put to death, with some of his

followers, at Treves, in 385, by order of the usurper Maximus, contrary

to the earnest instance of St. Martin, bishop of Tours. This was the

first instance of the infliction of death for heresy, and at the time

excited universal horror among Christians. St. Ambrose refused to

communicate with the bishops who had taken part in it, and a synod at

Turin excommunicated them.

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST. As the FATHER is eternal, without

beginning, so is the SON without beginning, the only begotten GOD of

GOD, Light of light, being very GOD of very GOD: in like manner the HOLY

GHOST, without beginning, has _proceeded_ from the FATHER and the SON.

This is one of the mysteries which must be always incomprehensible, from

our inability to comprehend an eternity _a parte ante_. In all

discussions relating to these subjects, we may quote to the objector the

wise words of Gregory Nazianzen: “Do you tell me how the FATHER is

unbegotten, and I will then attempt to tell you how the SON is begotten

and the SPIRIT proceeds.”

We will first give the doctrine as stated in the Articles and Creed, and

then give from Dr. Hey the history of the controversy which has long

subsisted between the Eastern and the Western Church.

Of the HOLY GHOST the fifth article says, “The HOLY GHOST, proceeding

from the FATHER and the SON, is of one substance, majesty, and glory,

with the FATHER and the SON, very and eternal GOD.”

The same doctrine is declared in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

In the Nicene Creed:

“I believe in the HOLY GHOST, who proceedeth from the FATHER and the

SON.”

In the Athanasian Creed:

“The _Holy Ghost_ is of the FATHER and of the SON, neither made nor

created nor begotten, but proceeding.”

In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, various disputes took place

with the followers of Macedonius with respect to the nature and

procession of the HOLY GHOST. It may be particularly mentioned, with a

view to what followed, that so soon as the years 430 and 431, in the

Councils of Alexandria and Ephesus, it was declared that the HOLY GHOST

proceedeth from the SON as well as from the FATHER. In order to

terminate these disputes, the Church in general made a sort of

settlement or determination what should be accounted Catholic doctrine;

and, to avoid further adjustings of formularies, agreed that nothing

should from that time be _added_ to those then under consideration. It

is probable that, at that time, the question whether the HOLY GHOST

should be spoken of as proceeding from the FATHER and the SON,

(_Filioque_ is the famous word,) did not occur to men’s minds.

_Filioque_ was not in the creeds, though it was not new. The students in

the Western Church seem ere long to have contracted an opinion, that it

was proper for them to profess in a creed, that the HOLY GHOST

proceedeth from the SON; they, therefore, inserted (or, one might say,

_restored_) _Filioque_, meaning, probably, no harm; and then the Eastern

Church thought as little of complaining as the Western of offending.

Afterwards, however, contentions for worldly grandeur produced

contentions about theological truth. Rome and Constantinople were

rivals, not only for imperial but for spiritual pre-eminence. The

patriarch of Constantinople styled himself _Episcopus Œcumenicus_.

Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, was more lowly in the title he

assumed; he was “_servus servorum_” scilicet Dei; but in his pretensions

to authority he was equally ambitious. The patriarch was at the head of

the Eastern Church, the pope of the Western. This rivalship made the

Churches seek occasions for blaming each other, and thus the insertion

of _Filioque_ came to be complained of as a breach of faith. It was

defended by the Western Church, because the word contained right

_doctrine_: this was enough to make the Eastern Church dispute the

_doctrine_: they did so, and the dispute still subsists, and still

causes a separation between the Eastern and Western Churches. One pope

(Leo III.) did once, for the sake of peace, order _Filioque_ to be put

out of the creed, at the same time ratifying the doctrine which it

comprehends; but he could only prevail in those churches which were

under his immediate sanction, and that only for a time. The obstinate

resistance of the Greek or Eastern Church to the insertion of

_Filioque_, is the more likely to be owing to some worldly

consideration, as several of the Greek fathers have the doctrine in

their works clearly expressed.—_Hey._ (See _Holy Ghost_.)

PROCESSION. The formal march of the clergy and the people putting up

prayer.

The first processions mentioned in ecclesiastical history are those

begun at Constantinople by St. Chrysostom. The Arians of that city being

forced to hold their meetings without the town, went thither night and

morning, singing anthems. Chrysostom, to prevent their perverting the

Catholics, set up counter-processions, in which the clergy and people

marched by night, singing prayers and hymns, and carrying crosses and

flambeaux. From this period, the custom of processions was introduced

among the Greeks, and afterwards among the Latins; but they have

subsisted longer, and been more frequently used, in the Western than in

the Eastern Church. The name of _Procession_ was formerly sometimes used

for the _Litany_. (See _Litany_, _Rogation Days_.)

PROCTOR. (_Procurator_, Lat.) Proctors are officers established to

represent, in judgment, the parties who empower them (by warrant under

their hands, called a _proxy_) to appear for them to explain their

rights, to manage and instruct their cause, and to demand judgment.

The representatives of the clergy in convocation are also called

proctors.

The same name is given to university officers, whose business is to

guard the morals and preserve the quiet of the university at Oxford and

Cambridge; to present candidates in arts and music for their degrees;

and (formerly in a more special manner than at present) to superintend

their public exercises. The latter is now the prominent practice of the

proctors in the university of Dublin: the senior proctor presiding at

the Masters’ exercises, the junior at the Bachelors’. They are two in

number, and chosen annually by the several colleges in cycle.

_Procurators_ were officers in some of the ancient universities of

Europe, as in Paris; they were then four in number, elected annually,

each by one of the four _nations_ into which the students were divided:

and the rector, the deans of divinity, law, medicine, and the four

proctors, formed the standing council of the university: somewhat

analogous to the _caput_ at Cambridge. The _deans_ were the proctors of

their respective faculties. Anciently the university of Oxford was

divided into two “nations,” as they might be called, each of which was

represented by a proctor.

PROCURATION. A pecuniary sum or composition by an incumbent to an

ordinary or other ecclesiastical judge, to commute for the provision, or

entertainment, which he was formerly expected to provide for such

ordinary at the time of visitation. (See _Synodal_.)

PROFESSOR. A public teacher in a university.

PROPHECY. (From προφητεία.) The prediction of future things. (See

_Scripture, Inspiration of_, and _Miracles_.)

PROPHESYINGS. Religious exercises of the clergy in the reign of Queen

Elizabeth, instituted for the purpose of promoting knowledge and piety.

The ministers of a particular division at a set time met together in

some church of a market or other large town, and there each in order

explained, according to their abilities, some portion of Scripture

allotted to them before. This done, a moderator made his observations on

what had been said, and determined the true sense of the place, a

certain space of time being fixed for despatching the whole. These

exercises being however abused, by irregularity, disputations, and

divisions, were restrained.—_Canon_ 72.

PROPHET. One who foretells future events. We have in the Old Testament

the writings of sixteen prophets; that is, of four greater prophets, and

twelve lesser prophets. The four greater prophets are, Isaiah, Jeremiah,

Ezekiel, and Daniel. The Jews do not place Daniel among the prophets,

because (they say) he lived in the splendour of temporal dignities, and

a kind of life different from other prophets. The twelve lesser prophets

are, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk,

Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

PROPITIATION. (See _Covenant of Redemption_, _Sacrifice_, _Atonement_,

_Satisfaction_, _Jesus_.) _Propitiation_ is originally a Latin word, and

signifies the appeasing of the wrath of GOD, or doing something whereby

he may be rendered propitious, kind, or merciful, to us, notwithstanding

that we have provoked him to anger by any sin or offence committed

against him. And the original word, ἱλασμὸς, is used by the Greeks

exactly in the same sense, as might easily be shown. But that we may

fully understand the true notion of the word, as it is here used, our

best way will be to consider how it is used in the Greek translation of

the Old Testament, made long before St. John’s time; for he, writing to

those who were generally accustomed to the words and phrases in that

translation, it cannot be supposed but he useth this, as well as other

words, in the same sense as it is used there: for otherwise they would

not so well have understood him. Now there we find that ἱλάσκεσθαι and

ἐξιλάσασθαι all along answer to the ‏כפר‎, which signifies _to appease_,

_to pacify_, _to reconcile_, a person offended, to _atone_ or make him

_at one again_ with the offender. So both the Hebrew and the Greek words

are used, where it is said, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of

death, but a wise man will _pacify_ it.” And also where Jacob, having

sent a present before him to his brother Esau, that was offended with

him, saith, “I will _appease_ him with the _present_ that goeth before

me.” He calls his present ‏מנחה‎, a word commonly used for offerings to

GOD. That was his propitiation, whereby his brother was reconciled to

him. So were the sacrifices of the Levitical law: they were the

Ιλασμοhὶ, the expiations, or propitiations, whereby GOD was atoned or

appeased towards him which brought them; or, as it is there expressed,

they were accepted for him, to make atonement for him. And when a man

had thus brought his offering, and the priest had therewith made

atonement for him, for the sin he had committed, then it was forgiven

him, as we often read. In all which places, both the Hebrew and Greek

words before mentioned are used; the first by Moses himself, the other

by the Seventy which translated him. And therefore we cannot doubt but

that the Greek word, coming from the same root, is here also used in the

same sense for such a propitiation, or propitiatory sacrifice, whereby

GOD is reconciled, or rendered propitious, to us, and our sins are

forgiven us; GOD accepting, as it were, of that sacrifice, instead of

the punishment which was due unto us for them.

The same appears also from several words derived from the same Hebrew

root, as ‏כפר‎, which the Seventy sometimes translate λύτρα, or λύτρον,

which signifies a _ransom_, a price paid for the redemption of man’s

life, that was forfeited by any capital crime, something given in

recompence and satisfaction for the crime whereby it was done away;

sometimes ἄλλαγμα, _commutation_ or _propitiation_, as the vulgar Latin

renders it: sometimes περικάθαρμα, “_piaculum_,” or a sacrifice offered

for the purging or expiating some heinous crime; or for the diverting

some heavy judgment from one to another, as in Prov. xxi. 18, where the

wise man saith, “The wicked shall be a _ransom_ (as we translate it) for

the righteous;” that is, as he himself elsewhere explains it, “The

righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his

stead.” Sometimes they translate it Ἰξίλασμα, _propitiation_,

_expiation_. And so the Jews anciently used this word in their common

discourse; for when one of them would show the greatest love he could to

another, he would say, ‏ כפרי הנני‎, “Behold, let me be his expiation;”

that is, as one of their most learned writers interprets it, “Let his

iniquities be upon me, that I may bear the punishments of them,” which

will give us great light into the true notion of the word, as we shall

see anon.

Another word from the same Hebrew root is ‏כפרים‎, which is commonly

used likewise for a _ransom_, _atonement_, _expiation_, _propitiation_,

or the like. As where we read of the ‏ כסף הכפרים‎, the atonement money,

the Seventy render it τὸ ἀργύριον τῆς εἰσφορᾶς, the tribute money that

every man was to give for the ransom of his life, when the people were

numbered—the _sin-offering of atonement_, τῆς ἐξιλάσεως, of

_propitiation_, as the Seventy translate it. The _ram of the atonement_,

in the Greek, κριὸς τοῦ ἱλασμοὺ, the _ram of propitiation_. In all which

places we see the word is used to denote something offered or laid down

for the pardon of a man’s sins, and so for the redemption of his life

that was forfeited by them. But that which is most observable in this

case is, that the great day, when the two goats were chosen, the one for

a sin-offering, with the blood whereof the high priest made atonement

for the people in the most holy place; and the other for the scape-goat,

upon the head whereof he confessed and laid the sins of the people, and

then sent him away into the wilderness, never to be heard of more: this

day, I say, is called ‏ יום הכפרים‎, the _day of atonement_, or, as the

Seventy render it, ἡμέρα τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, and, which is the same, τοῦ

ἐξιλασμοῦ, the _day of propitiation_. To which we might also add, that

the lid or cover of the ark where the law lay, is called ‏כפרת‎, which

the Seventy translate ἱλαστήριον, the _propitiatory_, we, the

_mercy-seat_.

These things, I confess, may seem something too nice and critical, but I

could not but take notice of them for the satisfaction of myself, and of

all that understand the original languages, as being of great use to our

finding out what the apostle here means by _propitiation_, according to

the common notion of the word he useth in those days, and among those to

whom he wrote; for hereby we may perceive, that, by the word

_propitiation_ here used, is meant such a sacrifice or offering made to

GOD for the sins of men, which he is pleased to accept of as a

sufficient atonement and satisfaction for the dishonour and injury that

was done him by them, so as not to require the punishments which were

due unto him for them, but to forgive them all, and to become again as

kind and propitious to the persons that offended him as if he had never

been offended by them. For he is now propitiated, he is pacified, and

reconciled to them: he receives them into his love and favour again, and

so into the same state they were in before he was displeased with

them.—_Beveridge._

PROPROCTORS. Two assistants of the proctors in the universities

nominated by them.

PROSES. There are hymns in the Roman Church which are called _Prosæ_,

Proses, a title given to composition in rhyme, in which the law of

measure and quantity established by the ancient Greeks and Romans are

neglected. These being sung after the Gradual or Tracts, were likewise

called _Sequentiæ_. Of this kind is the beautiful _Stabat Mater_. (See

_Sequences_.) The use of prosing began at the latter end of the ninth

century.—See _Burney’s History of Music_. An uncharitable inference

having been drawn from the epithet “beautiful” having been applied to

the _Stabat Mater_, as if the idolatry of that composition, in spite of

the contrary principles everywhere prevailing in this dictionary, had

been approved, it is necessary to state that the epithet has reference

only to the music.

PROTESTANT. The designation of _Protestant_ is used in England as a

general term to denote all who protest against Popery. Such, however,

was neither the original acceptation of the word, nor is it the sense in

which it is still applied on the Continent. It was originally given to

those who protested against a certain decree issued by the emperor

Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529.—_Mosheim._

On the Continent it is applied as a term to distinguish the Lutheran

communions. The Lutherans are called _Protestants_: the Calvinists, the

_Reformed_. The use of the word among ourselves in a sense different

from that adopted by our neighbours abroad, has sometimes led to curious

mistakes. The late Mr. Canning, for instance, in his zeal to support the

Romanists, and not being sufficiently well instructed in the principles

of the Church of England, assumed it as if it were an indisputable fact,

that, being Protestants, we must hold the doctrine of consubstantiation.

Having consulted, probably, some foreign history of Protestantism, he

found that one of the tenets which distinguishes the “Protestant,” i. e.

the Lutheran, from the “Reformed,” i. e. the Calvinist, is that the

former maintains, the latter denies, the dogma of consubstantiation.

It is evident that in _our_ application of the word it is a mere term of

negation. If a man says that he is a Protestant, he only tells us that

he is _not_ a Romanist; at the same time he may be, what is worse, a

Socinian, or even an infidel, for these are all united under the common

principle of protesting against Popery. The appellation is not given to

us, as far as the writer knows, in any of our formularies, and has

chiefly been employed in political warfare as a watchword to rally in

one band all who, whatever may be their religious differences, are

prepared to act politically against the aggressions of the Romanists. In

this respect it was particularly useful at the time of the Revolution;

and as politics intrude themselves into all the considerations of an

Englishman, either directly or indirectly, the term is endeared to a

powerful and influential party in the state. But on the very ground that

it thus keeps out of view distinguishing and vital principles, and

unites in apparent agreement those who essentially differ, many of our

divines object to the use of the word. They contend, with good reason,

that it is quite absurd to speak of the Protestant _religion_, since a

religion must of course be distinguished, not by what it renounces, but

by what it professes: they apprehend that it has occasioned a kind of

sceptical habit, of inquiring not how much we ought to believe, but how

much we may _refuse_ to believe; of looking at what is negative instead

of what is positive in our religion; of fearing to inquire after the

truth, lest it should lead to something which is held by the Papists in

common with ourselves, and which, _therefore_, as some persons seem to

argue, no sound Protestant can hold; forgetting that on this principle

we ought to renounce the liturgy, the sacraments, the doctrine of the

TRINITY, the Divinity and atonement of CHRIST,—nay, the very Bible

itself. It is on these grounds that some writers have scrupled to use

the word. But although it is certainly absurd to speak of the Protestant

_religion_, i. e. a negative religion, yet there is no absurdity in

speaking of the Church of England, or of the Church of America, as a

Protestant _Church_; the word Church conveys a positive idea, and there

can be no reason why we should not have _also_ a negative appellation.

If we admit that the Church of Rome is a true, though a corrupt Church,

just as a felon is a man, though a bad man, it is well to have a term by

which we may always declare that, while we hold in common with her all

that she has which is catholic, scriptural, and pure, we protest for

ever against her multiplied corruptions. Besides, the word, whether

correctly or not, is in general use, and is in a certain sense

applicable to the Church of England; it is surely, therefore, better to

retain it, only with this understanding, that when we call ourselves

Protestants, we mean no more to profess that we hold communion with all

parties who are so styled, than the Church of England, when in her

creeds and formularies she designates herself not as the _Protestant_,

but as the _Catholic_ Church of this country, intends to hold communion

with those Catholic Churches abroad which have infused into their system

the principles of the Council of Trent. Protestant is our negative,

Catholic our definitive, name. We tell the Papist, that with respect to

him we are Protestant; we tell the Protestant Dissenter, that with

respect to him we are Catholic; and we may be called Protestant or

Protesting Catholics, or, as some of our writers describe us,

Anglo-Catholics.

PROTEVANGELION. The name of a book attributed to St. James the apostle,

which treats of the birth of the blessed Virgin and of that of our

SAVIOUR. It was brought first from the East by Postulus in Greek, who

translated it into Latin, affirming that it is publicly read in the

Eastern Church, and formerly believed to have been written by St. James,

first bishop of Jerusalem; but the fables, of which it is full, disprove

this.

PROTHESIS. The place in a church on which the elements in the eucharist

are placed, previously to their being laid as an oblation on the altar.

Called also _credence_. The word _prothesis_ προθεσις is derived from

the temple service, in which the placing of the shewbread was called ἡ

πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων, and the bread itself, οἱ ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως, i. e.

the loaves set in order before the LORD.

PROTHONOTARY. A word that has a different signification in the Greek

Church from what it has in the Latin; for in the first it is the name of

one of the great officers of the Church of Constantinople, who takes

place next to the patriarch, and writes all despatches he sends to the

Grand Seignor; besides which he is empowered to have an inspection over

the professors of the law, into purchases, wills, and the liberty given

to slaves: but in the Roman Church they were formerly called

prothonotaries who had the charge of writing the acts of the martyrs,

and the circumstances of their death; a title of honour whereunto is

ascribed many privileges, as legitimatizing bastards, making apostolic

notaries, doctors of divinity, of the canon and civil law; they are

twelve in number.

PROTOPAPAS; i. e. archpriest: the head of a cathedral in the Eastern

Church, answering to our dean.

PROVERBS, THE. A canonical book of the Old Testament, containing the

Proverbs, or wise sayings, of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel.

This collection is but a part of the proverbs of that prince: for we are

told that “he spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a

thousand and five.” His name is prefixed to the whole work. In the

twenty-fifth chapter it is observed, that the following Proverbs belong

to him, but that they were collected by persons appointed by Hezekiah

for that purpose. The thirtieth chapter is entitled, “The words of Agur,

the son of Jakeh.” The last chapter is inscribed, “The words of king

Lemuel.” From these different titles it is concluded, that the first

twenty-four chapters are the genuine work of Solomon; that the five next

are a collection of several of his Proverbs, made by order of King

Hezekiah; and that the two last chapters were added, and belong to

different, though unknown, authors.

The Jews are of opinion, that Solomon wrote the Canticles in his youth,

the Proverbs in his manhood, and the Ecclesiastes in the latter end of

his life. The Hebrews called this book Mische, which signifies a

proverb, or allegory; the Greeks style it Παραβολαὶ, and the Latins,

_Proverbia_; which may properly be rendered sentences or maxims. They

contain rules for the conduct of all conditions of life; for kings,

courtiers, masters, servants, fathers, mothers, children, &c. The Greek

version of this book is often very different from the Hebrew, and adds a

great many verses, that are not found in the original. In the ancient

Latin editions several verses are added, which have been left out since

the time of St. Jerome.

This proverbial manner of speaking and writing was in great use and

esteem among the Hebrews, and in all the countries of the East. Hence it

was, that the queen of Sheba came to prove Solomon with hard questions,

or parables. Hiram, king of Tyre, they say, held a correspondence by

letters with Solomon, and proposed enigmatical questions to him, and

answered those that were proposed to him by Solomon.

PROVIDENCE. The superintendence which God exercises over creation. In

the very notion of a Creator this power is implied. The work of a

creature may continue after its author’s death: because the work of a

creature does not depend upon him who was the author of it, but upon

some pre-existing things which were not created by him, but merely

combined. While the pre-existing things remain in combination, the work

lasts; but when the pre-existing thing or things are removed, the work

perishes. A house survives the architect and builder, because the

pre-existing things, the stones for instance, and the mortar, remain in

combination. But the works of GOD are _not_ combinations; _they_ are

creations; things formed out of nothing. The pre-existing Being on whom

they depend is GOD, and GOD only. If GOD be removed from them they must

perish. His presence is their support. But when GOD is present, he is

present as an acting and intelligent being. Therefore we say, that what

in his wisdom he created, that by his providence he sustains.

The _general_ providence of GOD is seen in the laws of Nature. The

universe may be compared to a great machine, the whole of which has been

put into motion by the Creator, who watches over his works, and prevents

disorder and confusion. According to these laws, the earth proceeds in

its annual course, the moon observes its regular changes, the seasons

come round at their stated periods, and the tides, in all their variety,

keep their courses.

But although, to a certain extent, we perceive that there is such

regularity in the order of events, that Nature may be said to be bound

by laws; yet, as a matter of fact, we find that there is an occasional

and not unfrequent interference with those laws. This fact is expressed

in every language in which words occur equivalent to our expressions of

luck, chance, good or ill fortune. According to the laws of Nature, the

harvest follows the seed-time; but the husbandman is sometimes

disappointed in his just hopes: the race is to the swift, and the battle

to the strong, according to the laws of Nature; but accidents so

frequently occur, that we find that the race is _not_ always to the

swift, nor the battle to the strong. These deviations from the laws of

Nature, the Scriptures teach us to refer to an interference on the part

of GOD, and this interference with the laws of Nature we regard as his

_particular_ providence.

Relying on his _general_ providence, we labour and adopt the best means

for the furtherance of our ends: we plant, we sow, we endeavour to be

swift or strong. Believing in his _particular_ providence, we pray. (See

_Prayer_.)

PROVINCE. The limits of an archbishop’s jurisdiction, as the _diocese_

is the limits of the jurisdiction of a bishop: and so _provincial

constitutions_, _provincial courts_, _provincial synods_, _provincial

canons_, are the canons, synods, courts, and constitutions, which have

authority within the rule of a single archbishop.

PROVISIONS. An oppressive invention of the bishops of Rome, whereby the

right of patronage of ecclesiastical benefices was arbitrarily suspended

by the Pope, that he might present his own creatures, and make

_provision_ in the Church of England for foreign ecclesiastics. This

usurpation of the pope occasioned much discontent in the Church of

England; and at one time the evil had become so intolerable, that it

occasioned frightful disturbances. The pope (Gregory IX.) had granted a

provision on the patronage of one Sir Robert Thwinge, a Yorkshire

knight, who resented it so highly as to associate with himself some

eighty others, who had received the like treatment, by whom the persons

of foreign ecclesiastics were seized, and even the pope’s envoys

murdered. The king, Henry III., set himself to restore peace; and

Thwinge, betaking himself to Rome, was reconciled to the pope, and

recovered his right of patronage; and the pope conceded that there

should be in future no provisions, except in benefices in the patronage

of ecclesiastical persons or bodies. These he had usually found more

defenceless, and therefore over them he still exercised his usurped

authority.

PROVOST. The designation of heads of some colleges in our universities.

It was also the title given to the heads of several collegiate churches

in England, suppressed at the Reformation, and was their usual

designation in Scotland, except in cathedrals. In some foreign

cathedrals the head of the chapter is the provost, though there be a

dean besides; and in others the dean is head, the provost subordinate.

The latter was formerly the case in five out of the six of the

cathedrals in the province of Tuam: the name is still retained in some;

in others it has been exchanged for that of precentor. Archdeacon

Cotton, in his Fasti Ecclesiæ Hiberniæ, (part ii. 114,) says that the

title answered to that of chancellor. This observation seems

strengthened by the fact, that the dignity of chancellor did not

anciently exist in the province of Tuam. Maillane, in his _Dictionnaire

de Droit Canonique_, says that the provost had the care of the

temporals, the dean of the spirituals; that deans were established to

take care of the discipline of the church, and, in many chapters, became

in the course of time the first in rank. In Holland and elsewhere,

before the Reformation, the provost was sometimes a kind of archdeacon.

PSALMODY. The art or act of singing psalms. Psalmody was always esteemed

a considerable part of devotion, and usually performed in the standing

posture; and, as to the manner of pronunciation, the plain song was

sometimes used, being a gentle inflection of the voice, not much

different from reading, like the chant in cathedrals; at other times

more artificial compositions were used, like our anthems.—_Bingham._ The

word is now usually limited to the singing of the metrical psalms, but

properly it includes chanting also.

PSALMS. _The Book of Hymns._ Our word Psalm is the translation of two

very different Hebrew words. The first, _Tehillem_, properly means

_praises_, and is the title of the book. The other, _Mizmor_, means in

strictness, a poem. Psalm is derived from a Greek verb, ψάλλω, which

means to play or sing to an instrument, being very appropriate to these

sacred songs, which we know from Holy Scripture were sung to harps, and

other musical instruments. The Book of Psalms is a collection of hymns

or sacred songs in praise of GOD, and consists of poems of various

kinds. They are the production of different persons, but are generally

called “the Psalms of David,” because a great part of them was composed

by him, and David himself is distinguished by the name of the

_Psalmist_. We cannot now ascertain all the psalms written by David, but

their number probably exceeds seventy; and much less are we able to

discover with any certainty the authors of the other psalms, or the

occasions upon which they were composed; a few of them were written

after the return from the Babylonian captivity. And the ninetieth psalm,

as its title in the original in our Bible translation shows, is

attributed to Moses. There is no subject upon which learned men are so

much at variance as the authorship of the Psalms, and the meaning of

their titles. It is clear, however, that they may be divided into the

following classes: Psalms of David; Psalms or Songs of the Sons of

Korah; Psalms of Asaph; Songs of Degrees; and again into Penitential

Psalms, Hallelujah Psalms, and Historical Psalms.

The whole collection of psalms, usually divided into five books, is

eminently prophetical of the MESSIAH. The first book begins with the 1st

and ends with the 41st psalm, and the Hebrew word _LeDavid_, (_of or

concerning David_, _or by David_,) occurs before almost every psalm. The

2nd book begins with the 42nd psalm, the 3rd with the 73rd psalm, the

4th with the 90th psalm, and is continued to the 106th. The 5th and last

book opens with the 107th. The seven penitential psalms are, 6, 32, 38,

51, 102, 130, 143. These are appointed to be read in our Church on

Ash-Wednesday. For many ages they had been used in the Western churches

in token of special humiliation. (See _Alphabetical or Acrostical Psalm,

and Songs of Degrees_; _Korah, Psalms of_; _Asaph, Psalms of_; _and

Hallelujah_.)

PSALTER. The word Psalter is often used by ancient writers for the _Book

of Psalms_, considered as a separate book of Holy Scripture. It

afterwards assumed a more technical meaning, as the book in which the

Psalms are arranged for the service of the Church. The Roman Psalter,

for instance, does not follow the course of the Psalms as in Scripture;

they are arranged for the different services, in the several

accompaniments, as antiphons, &c. In our Psalter, the notice of the

divisions for the days of the month, and the pointing in the middle of

each verse, are a part of _the Psalter_, though not of the Psalms; and

some part of the Psalms unfit for recitation are omitted, as the titles,

the words _Selah_, _Higgaion_, &c., and the Hallelujahs with which many

psalms begin or end, or both. The division of the Psalms into daily

portions, as given in our Prayer Books, has been done with a view to

convenience. Something like this has long prevailed in the Church, but

without its regularity and system. Thus in Egypt, at first, in some

places, they read 60 psalms; in others, 50; and afterwards they all

agreed to recite 12 only. Columbanus, in his rule, appointed the number

of psalms to vary according to the seasons of the year, and the length

of the nights; so that sometimes 75 were sung. In the monasteries of

Armenia they repeat 99 psalms to the present day. In the Greek Church,

the Psalms are divided into _cathismata_, or portions, so that the whole

book is read through in a fortnight. Previously to the reform of our

offices, the English Church prescribed 12 psalms for the nocturn; but at

that period the number was reduced on an average to three, by the

division of the 119th, and by reckoning some other long psalms as each

more than one. Under the present arrangement the Psalms are divided into

60 portions, two of which are appointed for each day of the month.

Selections are also set forth by the American Church, which may be used

instead of the regularly appointed portions.

The Psalms are pointed as they are to be said or sung in churches; by

which is meant the colon in the middle of each verse, indicating the

pause to be made, not only in the chant, but also in the recitation, as

the words clearly imply; a direction commonly neglected by readers, to

the great prejudice of distinct enunciation.

The custom of repeating the psalms alternately, or verse by verse,

between the minister and the people, is probably designed to supply the

place of the ancient antiphon, or the responsive chanting of the psalms

by two distinct choirs. This latter practice is still retained in the

cathedrals of England, and is more primitive than the alternate reading

now prevailing in parish churches.

The Psalter, properly speaking, is a separate book from that of Common

Prayer; though bound up in the same volume, and equally subscribed to by

all the clergy. The title page of the Prayer Book announces the Book of

Common Prayer, &c., &c., _together with_ the Psalter, &c. The Prayer

Book and the Psalter were not included in the title page till the last

review. It is remarkable, that the same causes have had the same effects

in influencing the translation of the Psalter both in the Latin and the

English Church. In the former, the old Italian translation had become so

familiar to the people that St. Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew was

never adopted; but the old version, corrected considerably by St.

Jerome, was used; a less correct edition by the Roman, and a more

carefully worded one by the Gallican Church. The latter was in the

course of time adopted by all the Churches in communion with Rome with a

few exceptions. In like manner, the English Psalter does not follow the

last translation, (which is in the authorized version of the Bible,) but

that of Coverdale’s Bible, corrected, which had become familiar to the

people from constant use.

PUBLIC WORSHIP. (See _Formulary, Liturgy_.) The 90th Canon ordains: “The

churchwardens or questmen of every parish, and two or three more

discreet persons to be chosen for sidesmen or assistants, shall

diligently see that all the parishioners duly resort to their church

upon all Sundays and holy-days, and there continue the whole time of

Divine service; and all such as shall be found slack or negligent in

resorting to the church, (having no great or urgent cause of absence,)

they shall earnestly call upon them; and after due monition, (if they

amend not,) they shall present them to the ordinary of the place.”

_Article 20._ “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies” that

are not “contrary to GOD’S word.”

_Article 34._ “It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in

all places one or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers,

and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and

men’s manners; so that nothing be ordained against GOD’S word. Whosoever

through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break

the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to

the word of GOD, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought

to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that

offends against the common order of the Church, and hurts the authority

of the magistrate, and wounds the consciences of weak brethren. Every

particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and

abolish the ceremonies or rites of the Church, ordained only by man’s

authority; so that all things be done to edifying.”

Canon 6. “Whoever shall affirm, that the rites and ceremonies of the

Church of England by law established are wicked, antichristian, or

superstitious; or such as, being commanded by lawful authority, men who

are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience

approve them, use them, or, as occasion requireth, subscribe unto them;

let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not restored until he

repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

By Canon 80. “The churchwardens or questmen of every church and chapel

shall, at the charge of the parish, provide the Book of Common Prayer,

lately explained in some few points by his Majesty’s authority,

according to the laws and his Highness’s prerogative in that behalf; and

that with all convenient speed, but at the furthest within two months

after the publishing of these our constitutions.”

Every dean, canon, and prebendary, of every cathedral or collegiate

church, and all masters and other heads, fellows, chaplains, and tutors

of or in any college, hall, house of learning, or hospital, and every

public professor and reader in either of the universities, or in every

college elsewhere, and every parson, vicar, curate, lecturer, and every

other person in holy orders, and every schoolmaster keeping any public

or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in

any house or private family, as tutor or schoolmaster, who shall be

incumbent, or have possession of any deanery, canonry, prebend,

mastership, headship, fellowship, professor’s place, or reader’s place,

parsonage, vicarage, or any other ecclesiastical dignity or promotion,

or of any curate’s place, lecture, or school, or shall instruct or teach

any youth, as tutor or schoolmaster, shall at or before his admission to

be incumbent, or having possession aforesaid, subscribe the declaration

following: I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of

the Church of England, as it is now by law established (13 & 14 Charles

II. c. 4, s. 8; and 1 William, sess. 1, c. 8, s. 11). And no form or

order of common prayers, administration of sacraments, rites, or

ceremonies, shall be openly used in any church, chapel, or other place,

other than that which is prescribed in the said books. (s. 17.)

By Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirm, that the form of GOD’S worship in

the Church of England, established by law, and contained in the Book of

Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, is a corrupt,

superstitious, or unlawful worship of GOD, or containeth anything in it

that is repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be excommunicated _ipso

facto_, and not restored but by the bishop of the place, or archbishop,

after his repentance and public revocation of such his wicked errors.”

By Canon 38. “If any minister, after he hath subscribed to the Book of

Common Prayer, shall omit to use the form of prayer, or any of the

orders or ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, let him be

suspended; and if after a month he do not reform and submit himself, let

him be excommunicated; and then if he shall not submit himself within

the space of another month, let him be deposed from the ministry.”

And by Canon 98. “After any judge ecclesiastical hath pronounced

judicially against contemners of ceremonies, for not observing the rites

and orders of the Church of England, or for contempt of public prayer,

no judge _ad quem_ shall allow of his appeal, unless the party appellant

do first personally promise and avow, that he will faithfully keep and

observe all the rights and ceremonies of the Church of England, as also

the prescript form of Common Prayer, and do likewise subscribe to the

same.”

By the 13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4. “In all places where the proper

incumbent of any parsonage, or vicarage, or benefice with cure, doth

reside on his living, and keep a curate, the incumbent himself in person

(not having some lawful impediment to be allowed by the ordinary of the

place) shall once at the least in every month openly and publicly read

the Common Prayer and service in and by the said book prescribed, and

(if there be occasion) administer each of the sacraments and other rites

of the Church, in the parish church or chapel belonging to the same, in

such order, manner, and form as in and by the said book is appointed, on

pain of £5 to the use of the poor of the parish for every offence, upon

conviction by confession or oath of two witnesses, before two justices

of the peace; and, in default of payment within ten days, to be levied

by distress and sale by warrant of the said justices, by the

churchwardens or overseers of the poor of the said parish.” (s. 7.)

By the 2 & 3 Edward VI. c. 1, and 1 Elizabeth, c. 2, it is enacted as

follows: “If any parson, vicar, or other whatsoever minister, that ought

or should sing or say Common Prayer mentioned in the same book, or

minister the sacraments, refuse to use the said Common Prayers, or to

minister the sacraments in such cathedral or parish church, or other

places, as he should use to minister the same in such order and form as

may be mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall, wilfully or

obstinately standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order,

form, or manner of celebrating the LORD’S supper, openly or privily, or

matins, even-song, administration of the sacraments, or other open

prayer, than is mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall

preach, declare, or speak anything in the derogation or depraving the

said book, or anything therein contained, or of any part thereof; and

shall be thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this

realm, by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or by the

notorious evidence of the fact, he shall forfeit to the king (if the

prosecution is on the statute of the 2 & 3 Edward VI.) for his first

offence, the profit of such one of his spiritual benefices or promotions

as it shall please the king to appoint, coming or arising in one whole

year after his conviction, and also be imprisoned for six months; and

for his second offence be imprisoned for a year, and be deprived, _ipso

facto_, of all his spiritual promotions, and the patron shall present to

the same as if he were dead; and for the third offence shall be

imprisoned during life.”

Canon 18. “No man shall cover his head in the church or chapel in the

time of Divine service, except he have some infirmity; in which case let

him wear a nightcap, or coif. All manner of persons then present shall

reverently kneel upon their knees, when the general confession, Litany,

or other prayers are read; and shall stand up at the saying of the

Belief, according to the rules in that behalf prescribed in the Book of

Common Prayer. And likewise when in time of Divine service the LORD

JESUS shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all

persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward

ceremonies and gestures their inward humility, Christian resolution, and

due acknowledgment that the LORD JESUS CHRIST, the true eternal SON of

GOD, is the only SAVIOUR of the world, in whom alone all the mercies,

graces, and promises of GOD to mankind, for this life and the life to

come, are fully and wholly comprised. And none, either man, woman, or

child, of what calling soever, shall be otherwise at such times busied

in the church, than in quiet attendance to hear, mark, and understand

that which is read, preached, or ministered; saying in their due places

audibly with the minister the Confession, the LORD’S Prayer, and the

Creed, and making such other answers to the public prayers as are

appointed in the Book of Common Prayer: neither shall they disturb the

service or sermon, by walking, or talking, or any other way; nor depart

out of the church during the time of Divine service or sermon, without

some urgent or reasonable cause.”

Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and

reverently, upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book

of Common Prayer, and their eves, and at convenient and usual times of

those days, and in such places of every church as the bishop of the

diocese or ecclesiastical ordinary of the place shall think meet for the

largeness or straitness of the same, so as the people may be most

edified. All ministers likewise shall observe the orders, rites, and

ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, as well in reading

the Holy Scriptures and saying of prayers, as in administration of the

sacraments, without either diminishing in regard of preaching, or in any

other respect, or adding anything in the matter or form thereof.”

And by the preface to the Book of Common Prayer: “All priests and

deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either

privately or openly, not being let by sickness, or some other urgent

cause. And the curate that ministereth in every parish church or chapel,

being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say

the same in the parish church or chapel where he ministereth; and shall

cause a bell to be tolled thereunto, a convenient time before he begin,

that the people may come to hear GOD’S word, and to pray with him.”

PULPIT. Sermons were originally delivered from the steps of the altar,

which was sometimes called the Pulpitum, a term derived from the ancient

theatres. The _Ambones_, or pulpits of the primitive Church, were used

originally for reading the lessons only. In later times pulpits, or

elevated desks, were erected sometimes in the choir, but generally in

the nave, for the purpose of sermons. In our Church a raised desk,

called a pulpit, is ordered in every church, from which the preacher

addresses his flock. (See _Canon 83_.)

PURGATORY. A place in which souls are, by the Papists, supposed to be

purged, whether by fire or otherwise, from carnal impurities, before

they are received into heaven. The first authoritative decree concerning

purgatory is to be found in the Council of Florence, (A. D. 1439,) in

which council endeavours were made (and with momentary success) to

persuade the representatives of the Greek Church to adopt the Roman

innovations, and, amongst others, this of purgatory, which was so vague

and undefined, that the former found it necessary to ask what it was

that they meant by it. This inquiry produced the following synodical

definition of it:

“Since you have demanded to have the faith of the Roman Church expressed

concerning the truth of purgatory, we briefly reply in these writings,

‘that if any who truly repent depart from life before that by worthy

fruits of repentance they have made satisfaction for their sins of

commission and omission, their souls are purified after death, and to

the relieving these pains, the suffrages of the faithful who are alive,

to wit, the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other pious works,

are profitable.’ ‘But whether purgatory is a fire, or a mist, or a

whirlwind, or anything else, we do not dispute.’”

When first this error was broached by _individuals_ it is not easy to

determine; but in St. Augustine’s time, A. D. 398, it appears to have

been new, as he speaks of it as a thing which “possibly may be found so,

and possibly never;” and so our English Bede, “not altogether

incredible.” Its novelty, as an article of faith, is well expressed by

Fisher, bishop of Rochester: “For some time it was unknown; but lately

known to the Catholic Church. Then it was believed by some persons, by

little and little, partly from Scripture, and partly from revelations.”

This is spoken of in our twenty-second Article as “a fond thing, vainly

invented, and grounded on no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant

to the word of GOD.” What the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is,

cannot be better explained than by the Romish doctors themselves, who

tell us in the Council of Trent, “If any one say, that, after the grace

of justification received, the fault is so pardoned to every penitent

sinner, and the guilt of temporal punishment is so blotted out, that

there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be done away in this

world, or that which is to come in purgatory, before the passage can be

opened into heaven, let him be accursed.” And elsewhere they say, “There

is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the

suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the sacrifices of the

acceptable altar.” So that, as Bellarmine saith, “Purgatory is a certain

place, in which, as in a prison, the souls are purged after this life,

which were not fully purged in this life, to wit, that so they may be

able to enter into heaven, where no unclean thing enters in.” Thus we

see, in a few words, what the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is.

Now that this doctrine is a “fond thing” is plain, in that, by the

confession of some of their own writers, there is little or no footing

for it in the Scriptures. Nay, if we examine it by Scripture light, we

shall find it so far from being grounded upon the Scriptures, that it is

directly contrary to them. For the Scriptures say, “The dead know not

anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is

forgotten. Also their love and their hatred and their envy are now

perished; neither have they any more a portion, for ever, in anything

that is done under the sun.” (Eccles. ix. 5, 6.) Whereas this doctrine

saith quite contrary, that, when they are dead, they have a part or

portion in the prayers of the faithful, and the sacrifices of the altar.

Again; the Scripture makes mention but of a two-fold receptacle of souls

after death, the one of happiness, the other of misery. (1 Sam. xxv. 29;

Matt. vii. 13, 14; viii. 11; Luke xvi. 22, 23.) Whereas this doctrine

brings in a third, called purgatory, betwixt heaven and hell, half

happiness and half misery. Again; the Scripture saith, “The blood of

JESUS CHRIST, his SON, cleanseth [or purgeth] us from all sin” (1 John

i. 7); but this doctrine would persuade us, there are some sins which

are to be purged away by the prayers and good works of others. To name

no more, the Scripture saith, “He that believeth shall not come into

condemnation, but pass from death to life” (John v. 24); and therefore

St. Paul saith, “I am in a strait between two, having a desire to depart

and to be with CHRIST.” (Phil. i. 23.) So that St. Paul reckoned verily

upon it, that so soon as ever he was dead, he should be with CHRIST; no

sooner “absent from the body” but “present with the LORD.” (2 Cor. v.

8.) Whereas this Romish doctrine about purgatory bids him not to be so

hasty, for he might depart and yet not be with CHRIST neither; he might

pass from death, and yet not to life; he might and must be absent from

the body a good while before he be present with the LORD; he might go

from earth, yet not to heaven, but to purgatory, a place St. Paul never

dreamt of. So that this doctrine directly contradicts the Scripture. The

Scriptures say, “We shall pass from death to life;” this doctrine saith,

we shall not pass from death to life, but to purgatory: the Scriptures,

that “when we are absent from the body we are present with the LORD;”

but this doctrine, when we are absent from the body we are not present

with the LORD: the Scriptures, that “when we depart we shall be with

CHRIST;” this doctrine, that when we depart we must be in purgatory: the

Scriptures, that “we must go directly from earth to heaven;” but this

doctrine saith, that we must go about by purgatory, first going from

life to death, then from death to purgatory, and from purgatory to

heaven.

And as this doctrine herein contradicts the Scriptures, so does it

contradict the Fathers too. For Origen saith, “We, after the labours and

strivings of this present life, hope to be in the highest heavens,” not

in purgatory. And so Chrysostom, “For those that truly follow virtue,

after they are changed from this life, they be truly freed from their

fightings, and loosed from their bonds. For death, to such as live

honestly, is a change from worse things to better, from this transitory

to an eternal and immortal life that hath no end.” And Macarius,

speaking of the faithful, “When,” saith he, “they go out of their

bodies, the choirs of angels receive their souls into their proper

places, to the pure world, and so lead them to the LORD.” Whence

Athanasius saith, “To the righteous it is not death, but only a change,

for they are changed from this world to an eternal rest. And as a man

comes out of prison, so do the saints go from this troublesome life to

the good things prepared for them.” Certainly these Fathers were no

purgatorians, who so unanimously affirmed the souls of the saints to go

directly from earth to heaven, never touching upon purgatory.

To these we may add Gennadius, who assures us, that “after the ascension

of the LORD to heaven, the souls of all the saints are with CHRIST, and

going out of the body go to CHRIST, excepting the resurrection of their

body.” And to name no more in so plain a case, Prosper also tells us,

“According to the language of the Holy Scripture, the whole life of man

upon earth is a temptation or trial. Then is the temptation to be

avoided when the fight is ended; and then is the fight to be ended, when

after this life secure victory succeeds the fight, that all the soldiers

of CHRIST, who, being helped by GOD, have to the end of this present

life unwearily resisted their enemies, their wearisome travel being

ended, they may reign happily in their country.” So that they do not go

from one fight here to another in purgatory, but immediately from the

Church militant on earth to the Church triumphant in heaven. From hence

we may well conclude, that “the Romish doctrine about purgatory is a

fond thing repugnant to Scripture,” yea, and Fathers too.—_Bp.

Beveridge._

PURIFICATION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. This holy-day is kept in memory of the

presentation of CHRIST in the temple, and is observed in the Church of

England on the second of February. It was a precept of the Mosaic law,

that every first-born son should be holy unto the LORD, to attend the

service of the temple or tabernacle, or else to be redeemed with an

offering of money, or sacrifice. The mother, also, was obliged to

separate herself forty days from the congregation, after the birth of a

male, and eighty after that of a female; and then was to present a lamb,

if in good circumstances, or a couple of pigeons, if she was poor. All

this was exactly performed after the birth of our SAVIOUR, who came to

fulfil all righteousness; and was willing, in all particulars of his

life, that a just obedience should be paid to the public ordinances of

religion. The offering made in this case is an undesigned coincidence

attesting the poverty of his parents. This feast is of considerable

antiquity. St. Chrysostom mentions it as celebrated at his time in the

Church. It is observed as one of the scarlet days in the Universities of

Cambridge and Oxford.

PURITANS. A name assumed by the ultra-Protestants in the reigns of

Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., who called themselves _pure_,

though their doctrines were so impure as to lead them on to the murder

of their archbishop and their king. A violent and popular outcry has

often been raised against the Church, because, at the Restoration, those

of the clergy who refused to conform were ejected from their benefices.

But it will be well to see how the case really stands. _Seven thousand_

English clergymen, having refused to take the covenant at the great

Rebellion, were ejected from their livings, their places being supplied

by dissenting teachers. This most honourable testimony to the clergy of

the Church of England at that period ought never to be forgotten. At the

Restoration it was required, that all those persons who had thus become

possessed of the property of the English Church, should either conform

to the regulations of the Church, or resign. Of all the Puritan clergy

then in possession, only two thousand thought fit to resign rather than

comply. And these two thousand were ejected from what? From their

rights? No; but from their usurpations. Five thousand conformed, and

still retained possession of the Church property, so that many of the

previously ejected clergy of the Church of England who hoped, at the

Restoration, to be restored to their own, were sorely disappointed and

cruelly used. This treatment of the English clergy by the Puritans is

worthy of notice, and is an instructive commentary on the spirituality

of their pretensions, and the tenderness of their consciences.

“The taking of the covenant was now pressed close through all the

parliament quarters, which brought a terrible persecution upon the loyal

clergy. Those who refused to comply were turned out of their houses, and

not suffered to compound either for personal or real estate. This rigour

forced great numbers of the clergy to quit their benefices, and retire

to places under the king’s protection. These _vacancies_ were partly

supplied by those _Presbyterians_ who had formerly been _lecturers_ or

chaplains; partly by young unqualified students from the universities;

to which we may add, some refugees from _Scotland_ and _New England_,

who came in for their share of preferment. And some of those Puritans,

who had formerly declaimed so much against _pluralities_, were now

reconciled to the holding two or three livings. As to the honest clergy,

who refused to join the rebellion, or revolt from the Church, they were

sequestered and imprisoned, and almost every way harassed and undone.

From the year 1641 to six years forward, there were an hundred and

fifteen clergymen turned out of their livings within the _bills of

mortality_; most of these were plundered, and their wives and children

turned out into the streets. By these barbarities in London, the reader

may conjecture the greatness of the calamity in the rest of the kingdom.

They had another way of reaching the orthodox clergy besides the

covenant. Some of them were sequestered and ejected upon pretence of

scandal and immorality. But, to show the iniquity of their proceeding

upon this head, it may be observed, _first_, that some of the crimes

charged upon them were capital; and, therefore, since the forfeiture of

their lives was not taken, we may reasonably believe the proof was

defective. _Secondly_, the depositions against them were seldom taken

upon oath, but bare affirmation went for evidence. _Thirdly_, many of

the complainants were apparently factious men, who had deserted the

Church and professed an aversion to the hierarchy. _Fourthly_, many of

these pretended criminals were ignorantly, if not maliciously, charged

with delivering false doctrine: for instance, some were persecuted for

preaching that _baptism washed away original sin_: and, _lastly_, many

were ousted for _malignancy_; that is, for being true to their

allegiance. In short, it is observed there were more turned out of their

livings by the Presbyterians in three years, than were deprived by the

Papists in Queen Mary’s reign; or had been silenced, suspended, or

deprived by all the bishops from the first year of Queen Elizabeth to

the time we are upon.”—_Collier_, ii. 828.

PYX. The box in which Romanists keep the Host.

QUADRAGESIMA. The Latin name for _Lent_. It was formerly given to the

first Sunday in Lent, from the fact of its being _forty_ days before

Easter, in round numbers.

QUAKERS owe their origin to George Fox, in 1624. The following,

according to Mr. Burder, are their principal articles of belief.

Every one who leads a moral life, and from the sincerity of his heart

complies with the duties of natural religion, must be deemed an

essentially good Christian. An historical faith and belief of some

extraordinary facts, which the Christians own for truths, are the only

real difference between a virtuous Pagan and a good Christian, and this

faith is not necessary to salvation.

CHRIST is the true inward light, which enlightens all men. This is

performed by an immediate inspiration, and not by the outward doctrine

of the gospel, which CHRIST has preached to men as a rule of their

belief and practice; which outward preaching of evangelical truths is

not the usual and ordinary method used by GOD to enlighten mankind; but

he sends to each person interior inspirations. This interior light is

the true gospel; it is to be adored, as being CHRIST himself and GOD

himself.

Scripture is not the true rule, the real guide of Christian faith and

moral doctrine; this is a prerogative belonging only to the inward

light, which each has within himself, or which breaks forth in the

assemblies of the brethren or friends. The dead letter of the sacred

writings is not of so great authority as the preaching of the authors of

them: the particular books which make up the Scripture, were directed to

private churches or persons, and we are not interested them.

The chief rule of our faith is the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST, who

interiorly teaches us; and the Scripture is only a rule subordinate to

that Spirit. An immediate inspiration is as necessary to us as to the

apostles: it teaches us whatever is necessary to salvation. The promise

which CHRIST made to his apostles, to teach them all truth by his

Spirit, and that the HOLY GHOST should always remain with them, was not

confined to the apostles only, it belongs to all the faithful; and it is

said of them all, that the unction shall teach them all things.

All true ministers of CHRIST are as infallible in what they teach, as

the prophets and apostles were; otherwise the Spirit of CHRIST would not

be infallible. All those who are filled with the gifts of the SPIRIT are

equally infallible, without which the infallibility of the HOLY GHOST

must be divided; there is no exterior way of teaching, which may help

one to judge of the truth of the doctrine which he preaches. The

immediate inspiration is sufficient to enable a minister to preach

without Scripture, or any other exterior helps. Without this particular

inspiration all those who pretend to argue upon or explain the words of

CHRIST, are false prophets and deceivers. The Church ought to have no

other ministers, but those who are called by an immediate inspiration,

which is best proved by interior miracles, of which the outward signs

were only a representation or figure. The Quakers do not preach a new

gospel, and therefore need not work miracles to prove their doctrine; a

visible succession of ministers, ordained or otherwise established, is

likewise of no use. Whoever is inwardly called to the ministerial

functions, is sufficiently qualified for that post; inward sanctity is

as essentially requisite in a true minister, as in a true member of the

Church.

Women may preach with as much authority as men, and be ministers of the

Church; for in CHRIST there is no distinction of male and female, and

the prophet Joel has foretold that women should have the gift of

prophecy as well as men.

The Scripture nowhere says, that the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY

GHOST, are three persons; there are three several manifestations; but

three _persons_ would in reality be three Gods. The Scripture being

silent as to the manner of the unity and of the distinction in the

TRINITY, it is a great rashness in the Christian Churches to meddle with

deciding such intricate points. The distinction of persons in the

GODHEAD is a speculative subtlety, not calculated to mend our lives, and

very prejudicial to Christian peace and charity. To draw up an exact

profession of faith, it is necessary to adhere closely to the

expressions used in Scripture.

The true CHRIST is he who existed before he was manifested in the flesh,

and who has never been seen with the eyes of the flesh. JESUS CHRIST, as

GOD, has a heavenly humanity, of which the earthly one is but the

outward garment, the type or figure. JESUS CHRIST, the WORD and SON of

GOD, did not personally unite himself to our human nature; he only took

it as a suit of clothes, which he was to put on for a while. This human

nature was inspired, as other men, but in a superior and more particular

degree. CHRIST could not be united to a corrupt nature; his interior

birth within men, is a greater mystery than his outward nativity. The

faith in and the knowledge of CHRIST, according to the flesh, and of his

mysteries, were but the first elements fit for the infancy of

Christianity, which being over, those rudiments become useless: we now

have learned to be in CHRIST, to become new creatures, to let old things

pass away in order to make room for the new.

The expiation of our sins has not been merited by the outward spilling

of CHRIST’S blood, which was not more precious than that of any other

saint: neither has the Church been redeemed by it; but by an inward and

spiritual blood, which purifies our hearts and consciences, of which the

Scripture says, it was spilt for our justification; lastly, of which

CHRIST himself says, that he who does not drink his blood shall not have

life in him.

The Scripture does not say that CHRIST satisfied the justice of GOD for

our sins. As GOD may without any injustice forgive our sins without such

a satisfaction, it was not necessary, neither can it be reconciled with

the gratuitous remission of our sins: and moreover, GOD’S punishing his

own SON, who was innocent, is contrary to Divine justice.

CHRIST did not go up to heaven with the body which he had on earth,

which is not now in heaven at the right hand of GOD. It is an erroneous

opinion to think or believe that the body of CHRIST, which is in heaven,

occupies and fills any particular limited place: the body of CHRIST is

wherever his Spirit is; and it cannot save us, if distance of place

separates it from us: whoever preaches a doctrine opposite to these

propositions, is a false minister, and deceitful teacher: the same gift

of discernment in the examination of spirits, which was bestowed on the

apostles, remains still in the Church.

Our sins being once forgiven, it is wholly unnecessary to repent of them

any further, or to go on in asking forgiveness for them. We cannot

become GOD’S servants unless we be first purified.

Outward baptism is not an ordinance of CHRIST, or at least not to be

observed as a perpetual law. Whoever pretends that CHRIST’S order is to

be understood of water baptism adds to the text, which does not mention

water. The baptism enjoined by CHRIST is a baptism of spirit, not of

water. The water baptism was St. John’s, and has been abolished. St.

Paul says he was not sent to baptize, but to preach. Water baptism was

used by the apostles only as a toleration for the weakness of the Jews,

but it can do no good to the soul. Baptism by inspersion is nowhere

mentioned in Scripture. Water baptism, and the spiritual baptism, are

two entirely different baptisms. The inward baptism alone is the true

baptism of CHRIST.

Children ought not to be baptized, since they are not capable of taking

any engagement upon themselves, or of making a profession of faith, or

of answering to GOD according to the testimony of a good conscience.

Taking or receiving the eucharist is not a perpetual obligation; it was

instituted heretofore only for those who were newly converted to the

Christian religion, or for weak Christians in the beginning of their

Christianity.

Amongst the Quakers the spirit is what they call _free_, and does not

submit to synods, nor to worldly learning, wisdom, or customs: this is

one of the chief and most essential articles of their religion. All the

members of the Church may and ought to concur to the general good of the

body; all may have the same helps from the HOLY GHOST, and feel the same

impressions of his power; all are animated and fed, like our bodily

members, by the same efficacy and in the same manner; all by consequence

ought to give a helping hand to the edification of the mystical body, as

natural members contribute to the welfare of human bodies. This they

apply to the evangelical ministry: the SPIRIT, say the Quakers, notifies

by its impulse what is wanting to the Church, and obliges those members,

upon whom he makes that impulse, to give a speedy help to the mystical

body. If it should happen that out of laziness, neglect, or distraction,

the person so moved should not be sensible of the impulse, or not give a

due attention to the defects of which the members of the mystical body

are guilty, then they ought to rouse themselves with new fervour, and by

a perfect recollection make a trial of the gifts and power of the Spirit

of life. The call to pastoral functions essentially consists in this, it

requires no pomp, no ceremony, no improvement of the mind, no

preparation, no examination, nor any of the means used in other

Christian societies, to provide churches with pastors and teachers. Yet

if after this inward trial any one be moved and forcibly drawn by the

SPIRIT to engage in the ministry, the ecclesiastical council must not

omit the formality of examining whether the person so inspired be in

reality fit for it, and ought to be admitted to that dignity; the

importance of which, in regard to himself, and to the whole Church, is

strongly represented to him, in a speech or exhortation made to that

end. This ceremony is sometimes accompanied by the letters of other

churches and societies of Quakers, recommending such or such to that

office. When installed, they are maintained by voluntary contributions

only, without any settlement, contract, or previous agreement. Each

Quaker contributes freely, according to his power, and the minister is

not to accept of their benevolence, further than is necessary for a

sober and frugal maintenance; but if he be reduced to poverty for want

of such contributions, it is lawful for him to leave the congregation

which he served; he may even, according to their historian, shake the

dust off his feet against that Church, as CHRIST ordered his apostles to

do against those who would not receive them.

The Quakers apply equally to all governments, or pretended governments,

and do not seem to make one title better than another; for, to use their

own words, they do not dispute authority with any man, nor question

forms of government, nor trouble their heads what becomes of the world.

And, in consequence of this principle, they seem to make a kind of merit

of their faithful obedience, under all the usurpations of the Rump

Parliament, Cromwell, &c.

Robert Barclay, one of the most learned of their persuasion, in his

second proposition affirms, that the light within, or the Divine inward

revelation, is, like common principles, self-evident; and therefore it

is not to be subjected either to the examination of the outward

testimony of the Scriptures, or of the natural reason of man. In his

third proposition he asserts, that the Scriptures are not the principal

ground of all truth, nor the primary rule of faith and manners, they

being only a secondary rule and subordinate to the SPIRIT; by the inward

testimony of which SPIRIT, we do alone know them: so that, by this

reasoning, the authority of the Scriptures must depend upon the inward

testimony of the SPIRIT. He affirms further, that the depraved seed of

original sin is not imputed to infants before actual transgression.

(Prop. 4.) Those who have the gift of the light within, are sufficiently

ordained to preach the gospel, though without any commission from

churches, or any assistances from human learning; whereas those who want

the authority of this Divine gift, how well qualified soever in other

respects, are to be looked upon as deceivers, and not true ministers of

the gospel. (Prop. 10.) All acceptable worship must be undertaken and

performed by the immediate moving of the HOLY SPIRIT, which is neither

limited to places, times, nor persons; and therefore all outward

significations of Divine worship, unmoved by secret inspiration, which

man sets about in his own will, and can both begin and end at his

pleasure, all acts of worship thus mis-qualified, consisting either in

prayers, praises, or preaching, prescribed, premeditated, or extempore,

are no better than superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatry

in the sight of GOD. (Prop. 11.) The dominion of conscience belongs only

to GOD, therefore it is not lawful for civil magistrates to punish their

subjects, either in fortune, liberty, or person, upon the score of

difference in worship or opinions: provided always that no man, under

pretence of conscience, does any injury to his neighbour, relating

either to life or estate. The Quakers are charged with other errors of a

very bad complexion, drawn especially from the writings of those who

were first of their persuasion; but these tenets the modern Quakers seem

to disown, and appear very willing to explain and reconcile their

authors to a more orthodox meaning: the truth is, they now far differ

from what they were originally, not only in principle, but even their

external demureness and rigidity seem to be abated.

The following is taken from the Report published in 1854 by the

Registrar-general.

“The whole community of Friends is modelled somewhat on the Presbyterian

system. Three gradations of meetings or synods,—monthly, quarterly, and

yearly, administer the affairs of the Society, including in their

supervision matters both of spiritual discipline and secular polity. The

MONTHLY MEETINGS, composed of all the congregations within a definite

circuit, judge of the fitness of new candidates for membership, supply

certificates to such as move to other districts, choose fit persons to

be _Elders_ to watch over the ministry, attempt the reformation or

pronounce the expulsion of all such as walk disorderly, and generally

seek to stimulate their members to religious duty. They also make

provision for the poor of the society, (none of whom are, consequently,

ever known to require parochial relief,) and secure the education of

their children. _Overseers_ also are appointed to assist in the

promotion of these objects. At monthly meetings, also, marriages are

sanctioned previous to their solemnization at a meeting for

worship.—Several monthly meetings compose a QUARTERLY MEETING, to which

they forward general reports of their condition, and at which appeals

are heard from their decisions.—The YEARLY MEETING holds the same

relative position to the quarterly meetings as the latter do to the

monthly meetings, and has the general superintendence of the Society in

a particular country: that held in London comprehends the quarterly

meetings of Great Britain, by all of which representatives are appointed

and reports addressed to the yearly meeting. Representatives also attend

from a yearly meeting for Ireland held in Dublin. It likewise issues

annual epistles of advice and caution, appoints committees, and acts as

a court of ultimate appeal from quarterly and monthly meetings.

“A similar series of meetings, under regulations framed by the men’s

yearly meeting, and contained in the Book of Discipline, is held by the

female members, whose proceedings are, however, mainly limited to mutual

edification.

“Connected with the yearly meeting is a MEETING FOR SUFFERINGS, composed

of ministers, elders, and members chosen by the quarterly meetings. Its

original object was to prevail upon the government to grant relief from

the many injuries to which the early Friends were constantly exposed. It

has gradually had the sphere of its operations extended, and is now a

standing committee representing the yearly meeting during its recess,

and attending generally to all such matters as affect the welfare of the

body.

“There are also meetings of preachers and elders for the purpose of

mutual consultation and advice, and the preservation of a pure and

orthodox ministry.

“In case of disputes among Friends, they are not to appeal to the

ordinary courts of law, but to submit the matter to the arbitration of

two or more of their fellow-members. If either party refuses to obey the

award, the Monthly Meeting to which he belongs may proceed to expel him

from the Society.

“From the period of the Revolution of 1688 the Friends have received the

benefits of the Toleration Act. By the statutes of 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 34,

and 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 49, their solemn affirmations are accepted in lieu

of oaths; and the abrogation of the Test Act renders them eligible for

public offices.

“The first assemblies of the Friends for separate public worship were

held in Leicestershire in 1644. In 1652 the Society had extended itself

throughout most of the northern counties, and before the Restoration,

meetings were established in nearly all the English and Welsh counties,

as well as in Ireland, Scotland, the West Indies, and the British

provinces of North America. The Society in the United Kingdom is not now

increasing its numbers. The Friends themselves account for this, in

part, by the constant emigration of members to America, where the body

is much more numerous than in England. But they do not hesitate to admit

that much is attributable to the feebler endeavours now than formerly to

gain proselytes. Since 1800 their number, if computed by the number of

their meeting-houses, has diminished. In 1800 they possessed 413

meeting-houses, while the number returned to the Census in 1851 was only

371. They say, however, that this does not inevitably indicate a smaller

number of professors; since, of late, there has been a considerable

tendency amongst them to migrate from the rural districts, and to settle

in the larger towns. Small communities are to be found in parts of

France, Germany, Norway, and Australia.”

Though dissenters are frequently chosen as churchwardens, it appears by

a decision of Dr. Phillimore, (1 Curteis, 447,) that a Quaker cannot be

compelled to serve the office.

QUARE IMPEDIT, is a writ which lies where one has an advowson, and the

parson dies, and another presents a clerk, or disturbs the rightful

patron in his right to present.

QUARE INCUMBRAVIT, is a writ which lies where two are in plea for the

advowson of a church, and the bishop admits the clerk of one of them

within the six months; then the other shall have this writ against the

bishop.

QUARE NON ADMISIT, is a writ which lies where a man has recovered an

advowson, and sends his clerk to the bishop to be admitted, and the

bishop will not receive him.

QUATRODECIMANI, or PASCHITES. A name given, in the second century, to

some of the Christians, who would celebrate the feast of Easter on the

_fourteenth_ day of the moon, on what day of the week soever it

happened.

QUEEN ANNE’S BOUNTY. (See _Annates_.)

QUERISTER, or QUIRISTER. The same as _Chorister_, which see.

QUIETISTS. A Christian sect, that took its origin in the seventeenth

century from Michael Molinos, a Spanish priest, who endeavoured to

establish new doctrines in Italy; the chief of which was, that men ought

to annihilate themselves, in order to be united to GOD, and remain

afterwards in _quietness_ of mind, without being troubled for what

should happen to the body; and therefore his followers took the name of

Quietists, from the word _quies_, rest. By that principle he pretended

that no real act was either meritorious or criminal, because the soul

and its faculties, being annihilated, had no part therein; and so this

doctrine led people to transgress all laws, sacred and civil. The

doctrine of Molinos in 1687 was by the inquisitors and pope declared

false and pernicious, and his book burnt. He himself was imprisoned

after he had recanted, and died in 1692. It is supposed there long

remained many of this sect. Their doctrine also crept over the Alps into

France; the “Maxims of the Saints explained,” written by Fénelon,

Archbishop of Cambray, having some tendency that way, and having been

therefore condemned by the pope in 1699.

QUINQUAGESIMA. A Sunday so called, because it is the _fiftieth_ day

before Easter, reckoned in the whole numbers: SHROVE SUNDAY.

QUINQUARTICULAR CONTROVERSY. The controversy between the Arminians and

the Calvinists on the Five Points. (See _Five Points_.)

QUIRE. (See _Choir_.)

QUOD PERMITTAT, is a writ granted to the successor of a parson, for the

recovery of pasture, by the statute of the 13 Edward I. c. 24.

QUESTMEN. Persons appointed to help the churchwardens. In the ancient

episcopal synods, the bishops were wont to summon divers men out of each

parish to give information of the disorders of the clergy and people,

and these in process of time became standing officers, called synod’s

men, sidesmen, or questmen. The whole of the office of these persons

seems by custom to have devolved on the churchwardens. (See

_Churchwardens_.)

RANTERS. A denomination which arose in the year 1645. They set up the

light of nature under the name of CHRIST in men. With regard to the

Church, Scripture, ministry, &c., their sentiments were the same as the

Seekers. The sect thus instituted is now extinct, and the name is given

to the “Primitive Methodists,” as a branch of the Methodists are

denominated.

RATE. (_Church Rates._) The greater part of the property of this country

has been bought and sold with an understanding that the church of the

parish is to be kept and repaired by the owners of the property. Except

for this liability, a larger sum would have been paid for the property.

For those, therefore, who have thus profited by the existence of a

church rate, to refuse that rate, and so appropriate to themselves what

does not belong to them, is an act not only of profaneness but of

dishonesty.

Rates for the repairs of the church are to be made by the churchwardens

with the parishioners assembled, upon public notice given in the church.

The bishop cannot direct a commission to rate the parishioners, and

appoint what each one shall pay: this must be done by the churchwardens

and parishioners; and the spiritual court may inflict spiritual censures

till they do. But if the rate be illegally imposed by such commission

from the bishop, or otherwise, without the parishioners’ consent, yet if

it be after assented to, and confirmed by the major part of the

parishioners, that will make it good.

These levies are not chargeable upon the land, but upon the person in

respect of the land, for the more equality and indifferency. And houses

as well as lands are chargeable, and in some places houses only; as in

cities and large towns, where there are only houses, and no lands to be

charged.

A rate for the reparation of the fabric of the church is real, charging

the land, and not the person: but a rate for ornaments is personal, upon

the goods, and not upon the land.

And Sir Simon Degge saith thus: There hath been some question made,

whether one that holds lands in one parish and resides in another, may

be charged to the ornaments of the parish where he doth not reside; and

some opinions have been, that foreigners were only chargeable to the

shell of the church, but not to the bells, seats, or ornaments. But he

says, he conceives the law to be clearly otherwise; and that the

foreigner that holds lands in the parish, is as much obliged to pay

towards the bells, seats, and ornaments, as to the repair of the church;

otherwise there would be a great confusion in making several levies, the

one for the repair of the church, the other for the ornaments, which he

says he never observed to be practised within his knowledge. And it is

possible that all, or the greatest part of the land in the parish, may

be held by foreigners; and it were unreasonable in such case to lay the

whole charge upon the inhabitants, which may be but a poor shepherd. The

reason alleged against this charge upon the foreigners, is chiefly

because the foreigner hath no benefit by the bells, seats, and

ornaments; which receives an answer in Jeffrey’s case, (5 Co. 67,) for

there it is resolved, that landholders that live in a foreign parish are

in judgment of law inhabitants and parishioners, as well in the parish

where they hold lands, as where they reside, and may come to the parish

meetings, and have votes there as well as others. For authorities in the

case, it is clear by the canon law, that all landholders, whether they

live in the parish or out of it, are bound to contribute. And the

practice, from its ease and convenience, seems now generally to go with

this opinion.

_Stratford._ All persons, as well religious as others whatsoever, having

possessions, farms, or rents, which are not of the glebe or endowment of

the churches to be repaired, living within the parish or elsewhere,

shall be bound to contribute with the rest of the parishioners of the

aforesaid churches, as often as shall be needful, to all charges

incumbent upon the parishioners concerning the church and the ornaments

thereof, by law or custom, having respect unto the quantity of such

possessions and rents. Whereupon, so often as shall be necessary, the

ordinary shall compel them by ecclesiastical censures and other lawful

means.

If a person inhabiteth in one parish, and hath land in another parish,

which he occupieth himself there, he shall be charged for this land, for

the reparation of the church of the parish in which the land lieth;

because he may come there when he will, and he is to be charged in

respect of the land. And such occupation of land maketh the person

occupying a parishioner, and entitles him to come to the assemblies of

the same parish, when they meet together for such purposes.

Where such lands are in farm, not the lessor, but the tenant, shall pay.

For (as it was determined in Jeffrey’s case before cited) there is an

inhabitant and parishioner who may be charged; and the receipt of the

rent doth not make the lessor a parishioner.

It is said that the patron of a church, as in right of the founder, may

prescribe, that, in respect of the foundation, he and his tenants have

been freed from the charge of repairing the church.

The rectory, or vicarage, which is derived out of it, are not chargeable

to the repair of the body of the church, steeple, public chapels, or

ornaments; being at the whole charge of repairing the chancel.

But an impropriator of a rectory or parsonage, though bound to repair

the chancel, is also bound to contribute to the reparations of the

church, in case he hath lands in the parish which are not parcel of the

rectory.

The inhabitants of a precinct where there is a chapel, though it is a

parochial chapel, and though they do repair that chapel, are

nevertheless of common right contributory to the repairs of the

mother-church. If they have seats at the mother-church, to go thither

when they please, or receive sacraments, or sacramentals, or marry,

christen, or bury at it, there can be no pretence for a discharge. Nor

can anything support that plea, but that they have time out of mind been

discharged (which also is doubted whether it be of itself a full

discharge); or that, in consideration thereof, they have paid so much to

the repair of the church, or the wall of the churchyard, or the keeping

of the bell, or the like compositions (which are clearly a discharge).

Every inhabitant, dwelling within the parish, is to be charged according

to his ability, whether in land or living within the same parish, or for

his goods there; that is to say, for the best of them, but not for both.

Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living

within the said parish in his own occupation, is to be charged to the

value of the same lands or living, or else to the value of the stock

thereupon; that is, for the best, but not for both.

Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living

within the parish, in the occupation of any farmer or farmers, is not to

be charged; but the farmer or farmers thereof are to be charged; in

particularity, every one according to the value of the land which he

occupieth, or according to the stock thereupon; that is, for the best,

but not for both.

Every inhabitant and farmer occupying arable land within the parish, and

feeding his cattle out of the parish, is to be charged with the arable

land within the parish, although his cattle be fed out of the parish.

Every farmer of any mill within the parish, is to be charged for that

mill; and the owner thereof (if he be an inhabitant) is to be charged

for his hability in the same parish, besides the mill.

Every owner of lands, tenements, copyholds, or other hereditaments,

inhabiting within the parish, is to be taxed according to his wealth in

regard of a parishioner, although he occupy none of them himself; and

his farmer or farmers also are to be taxed for occupying only.

The assessors are not to tax themselves, but to leave the taxation of

them to the residue of the parish.

The law as to the power of making and levying rates for church purposes

cannot be said to be definitively settled at present, as there have been

conflicting decisions, and some points of great importance are now _sub

judice_, so far as regards the highest court of appeal in the kingdom.

But at present the preponderance of authority is in favour of these two

points: 1. That for _the necessary repairs of the church_ the

churchwardens may and ought to make and levy a rate, even though it be

opposed by a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled. 2. That any

expense connected with the celebration of service in the church, even to

the salaries of pew openers and organist, may be levied by rate from the

whole parish, if a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled have

assented thereto.

RATIONALISM. To rationalize is to ask for _reasons_ out of place; to ask

improperly how we are to account for certain things, to be unwilling to

believe them unless they can be accounted for, i. e. referred to

something else as a cause, to some existing system as harmonizing with

them, or taking them up into itself. Again; since whatever is assigned

as the reason for the original fact canvassed, admits in turn of a like

question being raised about itself, unless it be ascertainable by the

senses, and be the subject of personal experience, Rationalism is bound

properly to pursue onward its course of investigation on this principle,

and not to stop, till it can directly or ultimately refer to self as a

witness, whatever is offered to its acceptance. Thus it is characterized

by two peculiarities; its love of systematizing, and its basing its

system upon personal experience, on the evidence of sense. In both it

stands opposed to what is commonly understood by the word _faith_, or

belief in testimony; for which it deliberately substitutes system (or,

what is popularly called _reason_) and sight. Rationalism is concerned

with _Anthropology_, Faith with _Theology_.

READER. The office of reader is one of the five inferior orders in the

Romish Church.

And in the Church of England, in churches or chapels where there is only

a very small endowment, and no clergyman will take upon him the charge

or cure thereof, it has been usual to admit readers, to the end that

Divine service in such places might not altogether be neglected.

It is said, that readers were first appointed in the Church about the

third century. In the Greek Church they were said to have been ordained

by the imposition of hands: but whether this was the practice of all the

Greek Churches has been much questioned. In the Latin Church it was

certainly otherwise. The Council of Carthage speaks of no other

ceremony, but the bishop’s putting the Bible into his hands in the

presence of the people, with these words, “Take this book and be thou a

reader of the word of GOD, which office if thou shalt faithfully and

profitably perform, thou shalt have part with those that minister in the

word of GOD.” And, in Cyprian’s time, they seem not to have had so much

as this ceremony of delivering the Bible to them, but were made readers

by the bishop’s commission and deputation only to such a station in the

Church.—_Bingham._

Upon the Reformation here, they were required to subscribe to the

following injunctions:—“_Imprimis_,—I shall not preach or interpret, but

only read that which is appointed by public authority:—I shall not

minister the sacraments or other public rites of the Church, but bury

the dead, and purify women after their child-birth:—I shall keep the

register book according to the injunctions:—I shall use sobriety in

apparel, and especially in the church at common prayer:—I shall move men

to quiet and concord, and not give them cause of offence:—I shall bring

in to my ordinary, testimony of my behaviour, from the honest of the

parish where I dwell, within one half year next following:—I shall give

place upon convenient warning so thought by the ordinary, if any learned

minister shall be placed there at the suit of the patron of the

parish:—I shall claim no more of the fruits sequestered of such cure

where I shall serve, but as it shall be thought meet to the wisdom of

the ordinary:—I shall daily at the least read one chapter of the Old

Testament, and one other of the New, with good advisement, to the

increase of my knowledge:—I shall not appoint in my room, by reason of

my absence or sickness, any other man; but shall leave it to the suit of

the parish to the ordinary, for assigning some other able man:—I shall

not read but in poorer parishes destitute of incumbents, except in the

time of sickness, or for other good considerations to be allowed by the

ordinary:—I shall not openly intermeddle with any artificer’s

occupations, as covetously to seek a gain thereby, having in

ecclesiastical living the sum of twenty nobles or above by the year.”

This was resolved to be put to all readers and deacons by the respective

bishops, and is signed by both the archbishops, together with the

bishops of London, Winchester, Ely, Sarum, Carlisle, Chester, Exeter,

Bath and Wells, and Gloucester.—_Strype’s Annals._

By the foundation of divers hospitals, there are to be readers of

prayers there, who are usually licensed by the bishop.

READING DESK. (See _Pew_.) The reading desk, or reading pew, appears to

have been frequently erected at the same time as the pulpit, which was

ordered by the canons of 1603 to be placed in every church not already

provided with one. The reading desk is only once recognised in our

Prayer Book, and that in the rubric prefixed to the Commination, and is

there called a reading _pew_; and it is remarkable that the term was

first introduced there at the last revision of the Prayer Book, in 1661:

it is not found in any edition printed before that time. Bishop Sparrow

tells us, that, previously to the time of Cromwell, the reading pew had

one desk for the Bible, looking towards the people to the body of the

Church; another for the Prayer Book, looking towards the east, or upper

end of the chancel. And very reasonable was this usage: for, when the

people were spoken to, it was fit to look towards them, but when GOD was

spoken to, it was fit to turn from the people. And besides, if there be

any part of the world more honourable in the esteem of men than another,

it is fit to look that way when we pray to GOD in public, that the

turning of our bodies to a more honourable place may mind us of the

great honour and majesty of the person we speak to. And this reason St.

Augustine gives of the Church’s ancient custom of turning to the east in

their public prayers, because the east is the most honourable part of

the world, being the region of light, whence the glorious sun arises.

READING IN. The ceremony of reading in, which is required of every

incumbent on entering upon his cure, is best described in the memorandum

to be signed by the churchwardens, or other inhabitants of the parish,

of its having been performed. It is as follows:—

“Memorandum, that on Sunday, the —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD

——, the Reverend A. B., clerk, rector, or vicar of ——, in the county of

——, and diocese of ——, did read in his church of —— aforesaid, the

articles of religion, commonly called the Thirty-nine Articles, agreed

upon in convocation, in the year of our LORD 1562, and did declare his

unfeigned assent and consent thereto; also, that he did publicly and

openly, on the day and year aforesaid, in the time of Divine service,

read a declaration in the following words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare,

that I will conform to the liturgy of the United Church of England and

Ireland, as it is now by law established,’ together with a certificate

under the hand of the Right Reverend ——, by Divine permission Lord

Bishop of ——, of his having made and subscribed the same before him; and

also that the said A. B. did read, in his parish church aforesaid,

publicly and solemnly, the Morning and Evening Prayer according to the

form prescribed in and by the book, intituled ‘The Book of Common

Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and

Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England;

together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be

sung or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining,

and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;’ and that immediately

after reading the Evening Service, the said A. B. did, openly and

publicly, before the congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned

assent and consent to all things therein contained and prescribed, in

these words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare my unfeigned assent and consent

to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book,

intituled the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the

Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to

the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms

of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches, and the

Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests,

and Deacons.’ And these things we promise to testify upon our corporal

oaths, if at any time we should be duly called upon so to do. In witness

whereof we have hereunto set our hands, the day and year first above

written.”

REAL PRESENCE. (See _Transubstantiation_, _Communion_, _Lord’s Supper_,

_Eucharist_.) The Homily on the Sacrament expressly asserts, “Thus much

we must be sure to hold, that in the supper of the LORD there is no vain

ceremony or bare sign, _no untrue figure of a thing absent_: but the

communion of the body and blood of our LORD in a marvellous

incorporation, which, by the operation of the HOLY GHOST, is through

faith wrought in the souls of the faithful.” In the order for the

Administration of the LORD’S SUPPER, the elements are repeatedly

designated as the body and blood of CHRIST, and after the reception of

them we give thanks that GOD “doth vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly

received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most

precious body of [His] SON, our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.” In the

exhortation of the same office, mention is made of “the holy communion

of the body and blood of CHRIST.” “We spiritually eat the flesh of

CHRIST, and drink his blood.”—_Ibid._ “Grant us, therefore, gracious

LORD, so to eat the flesh of thy dear SON JESUS CHRIST, and to drink his

blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,”

&c.—_Prayer before Consecration._ “Grant that we, receiving these thy

creatures, of bread and wine, &c. ... may be partakers of his most

precious body and blood.”—_Consecration._ The catechism, in agreement

with this, defines the inward part of this sacrament to be “the body and

blood of CHRIST, which are _verily and indeed_ taken and received by the

faithful in the LORD’S supper.” The 28th Article asserts, with reference

to the holy communion, that “to such as rightly, worthily, and with

faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the

body of CHRIST, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the

blood of CHRIST.”

So speaks the Church of England, which expressly rejects the Romish

figment of transubstantiation. Therefore, the Church of England

distinguishes between the real presence, which she so strongly asserts,

and the Romish error which has led to Romish heresy.

Bishop Ridley, our great reformer, who died because he would not accept

the fable of transubstantiation, said, addressing his judge, “My lord,

you know that where any equivocation, which is a word having two

significations, is, except distinction be given, no direct answer can be

made; for it is one of Aristotle’s fallacies, containing two questions

under one, the which cannot be satisfied with one answer. For both you

and I agree herein, that the sacrament is the very true and natural body

and blood of CHRIST, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which

ascended into heaven, and which sitteth at the right hand of GOD the

FATHER, which shall come from thence to judge both the quick and the

dead, only we differ _in modo_, in the way and manner of being; we

confess all one thing to be in the sacrament, and dissent in the manner

of being there. I, being fully by GOD’S word thereto persuaded, confess

CHRIST’S natural body to be in the sacrament, _indeed by spirit and

grace_, because whosoever receiveth _worthily_ that bread and wine,

receiveth effectually CHRIST’S body and drinketh his blood; that is, he

is made effectually partaker of his passion; and _you_ make a grosser

kind of being, enclosing a natural, a lively, a moving body, under the

shape or form of bread and wine. Now this difference considered, to the

question I answer: that in the sacrament of the altar is the natural

body and blood of CHRIST _vere et realiter_, indeed and in reality, if

you take those terms, _indeed and really_, for _spiritually by grace and

efficacy_; for so every _worthy_ receiver receiveth the very true body

of CHRIST: but if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you

include a lively and a moveable body under the forms of bread and wine,

then, in that sense, is _not_ CHRIST’S body in the sacrament, really and

indeed.”—_Wordsworth’s Biography_, iii. 237. The difference is strongly

pointed out by Gloucester Ridley. “With reference to Bishop Ridley’s

opinions, he and those associated with him denied the presence of

CHRIST’S body in the natural substance of his human and assumpt nature,

but grant the presence of the same by grace; that is, they affirmed and

said, that the substance of the natural body and blood of CHRIST is only

remaining in heaven, and so shall be until the latter day, when he shall

come again to judge the quick and the dead; but by grace the same body

is present here with us, as we say of the sun, which in substance never

removeth his place out of the heavens, is yet present here by his beams,

light, and natural influence, when it shineth upon earth. For all grant

that St. Paul’s words require, that the bread which we break should be

the communion of the body of CHRIST, and that the cup of blessing should

be the communion of the blood of CHRIST.”—_Ridley._

That which is given by the priest in this sacrament is, as to its

substance, bread and wine; as to its sacramental nature and

signification, it is the figure or representation of CHRIST’S body and

blood, which was broken and shed for us. The very body and blood of

CHRIST, as yet, it is not; but, being with faith and piety received by

the communicant, it becomes to him, by the blessing of GOD and the grace

of the HOLY SPIRIT, the very body and blood of CHRIST; as it entitles

him to a part in the sacrifice of his death, and to the benefits thereby

procured to all his faithful and obedient servants.—_Abp. Wake._

These words (viz. “the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and

indeed taken and received”) are intended to show, that our Church as

truly believes the strongest assertions of Scripture concerning this

sacrament, as the Church of Rome doth, only takes more care to

understand them in the right meaning: which is, that though, in one

sense, all communicants equally partake of what CHRIST calls his body

and blood, that is, the outward signs of them, yet in a much more

important sense, “the faithful” only, the pious and virtuous receiver,

eats his flesh and drinks his blood, shares in the life and strength

derived to men from his incarnation and death, and, through faith in

him, becomes, by a vital union, one with him; “a member,” as St. Paul

expresses it, “of his flesh and of his bones” (Eph. v. 30); certainly

not in a literal sense, which yet the Romanists might as well assert, as

that we eat his flesh in a literal sense, but in a figurative and

spiritual one. In appearance, the sacrament of CHRIST’S death is given

to all alike; but “verily and indeed,” in its beneficial effects, to

none besides the faithful. Even to the unworthy communicant he is

present, as he is wherever we meet together in his name; but in a better

and most gracious sense to the worthy soul, becoming, by the inward

virtue of his Spirit, its food and sustenance.

This real presence of CHRIST in the sacrament, his Church hath always

believed. But the monstrous notion of his bodily presence was started

700 years after his death; and arose chiefly from the indiscretion of

preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who instead of explaining

judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language, heightened them,

and went beyond them, till both it and they had their meaning mistaken

most astonishingly. And when once an opinion had taken root, that seemed

to exalt the holy sacrament so much, it easily grew and spread; and the

more for its wonderful absurdity in those ignorant and superstitious

ages: till at length, 500 years ago, and 1200 years after our SAVIOUR’S

birth, it was established for a gospel-truth, by the pretended authority

of the Romish Church; and even this had been tolerable in comparison, if

they had not added idolatrous practice to erroneous belief, worshipping,

on their knees, a bit of bread for the SON of GOD. Nor are they content

to do this themselves, but, with most unchristian cruelty, curse and

murder those who refuse it.