It is true we also kneel at the sacrament as they do, but for a very

different purpose; not to acknowledge “any corporal presence of CHRIST’S

natural flesh and blood,” as our Church, to prevent all possibility of

misconstruction, expressly declares, adding, that “his body is in

heaven, and not here,” but to worship him who is everywhere present, the

invisible GOD. And this posture of kneeling we by no means look upon as

in itself necessary, but as a very becoming appointment, and very fit to

accompany the prayers and praises which we offer up at the instant of

receiving; and to express that inward spirit of piety and humility, on

which our partaking worthily of this ordinance, and receiving benefit

from it, depend.—_Abp. Secker._

At the end of the whole office (of the Communion) is added a

protestation concerning the gesture of _kneeling_ at the sacrament of

the LORD’S supper, and explaining the Church’s notion of the presence of

Christ’s body and blood in the same. This was first added in the Second

Book of King Edward, in order to disclaim any adoration to be intended

by that ceremony, _either unto the sacramental bread or wine then bodily

received, or unto any real and essential_ presence there being, of

Christ’s natural flesh and blood. But upon Queen Elizabeth’s accession

this was laid aside. It appears no more in any of our Common Prayers

till the last review: at which time it was again added, with some little

amendment of the expressions and transposal of the sentences; but

exactly the same throughout as to the sense; excepting that the words

_real and essential presence_ were thought proper to be changed for

_corporal presence_. For _a real presence_ of the body and blood of

Christ in the eucharist, is what our Church frequently asserts in this

very office of Communion, in her Articles, in her Homilies, and in her

catechism [as quoted above]. This is the doctrine of our Church in

relation to the _real presence_ in the sacrament, entirely different

from the doctrine of transubstantiation, which she here, as well as

elsewhere, disclaims: a doctrine which requires so many ridiculous

absurdities and notorious contradictions to support it, that it is

needless to offer any confutation of it, in a Church, which allows her

members the use of their senses, reason, Scripture, and

antiquity.—_Wheatly._

REALISTS. The Realists, who followed the doctrine of Aristotle with

respect to universal ideas, were so called in opposition to the

Nominalists, (see _Nominalists_,) who embraced the hypothesis of Zeno

and the Stoics upon that perplexed and intricate subject. Aristotle

held, against Plato, that, previous to, and independent of, matter,

there were no universal ideas or essences; and that the ideas, or

exemplars, which the latter supposed to have existed in the Divine mind,

and to have been the models of all created things, had been eternally

impressed upon matter, and were coeval with, and inherent in, their

objects. Zeno and his followers, departing both from the Platonic and

Aristotelian systems, maintained that these pretended universals had

neither form nor essence, and were no more than mere terms and nominal

representations of their particular objects. The doctrine of Aristotle

prevailed until the eleventh century, when Roscelinus embraced the

Stoical system, and founded the sect of the Nominalists, whose

sentiments were propagated with great success by the famous Abelard.

These two sects differed considerably among themselves, and explained,

or rather obscured, their respective tenets in a variety of ways.

RECANTATION. (See _Abjuration_.)

RECTOR. (See _Vicar_.) A term applied to several persons whose offices

are very different, as, 1. The rector of a parish is a clergyman who has

the charge and care of a parish, and possesses all the tithes, &c. 2.

The same name is also given to the head in some of our colleges, and

also to the head-master of large schools. 3. Rector is also used in

several convents for the superior officer who governs the house. The

Jesuits gave this name to the superiors of such of their houses as were

either seminaries or colleges.

RECUSANT. A _Recusant_, in general, signifies any person, whether Papist

or other, who refuseth to go to church and to worship GOD after the

manner of the Church of England: a _Popish Recusant_ is a Papist who so

refuseth; and a _Popish Recusant convict_ is a Papist legally convicted

of such offence.

REDEEMER, THE. Our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. “I know that my

_Redeemer_ liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the

earth.” (Job xix. 25.) “The Redeemer shall come to Sion.” (Isa. lix.

20.) “CHRIST hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a

curse for us.” (Gal. iii. 13.) “Redeemed with the precious blood of

CHRIST.” (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) “Having obtained eternal redemption for

us.” (Heb. ix. 12. See also Job xxxiii. 23, 24; Matt. xxvi. 28; Rom.

iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; Rev. v. 9.)

REDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death, by the obedience and

sacrifice of CHRIST, who on this account is called the “REDEEMER.”

(Isaiah lix. 20; Job xix. 25.)—(See _Covenant of Redemption_.)

REFORMATION. The rescue of our Church from the usurped dominion of the

pope, and its restoration from the corruptions of Popery to a nearer

approach to primitive purity, which took place in the 16th century, is

called the _Reformation_. (See _Church of England_, and _Lutheranism_.)

The same term is applied to the contemporaneous Protestant movement on

the Continent, and in Scotland.

As regards the separation of the Church of England from the corrupt

Church of Rome, it began in the reign of King Henry VIII., and was fully

established in that of Queen Elizabeth.

King Henry VIII. was at first a great stickler for the see of Rome. No

one discovered more zeal for it than he did in the beginning of his

reign. He even wrote a book against Luther, entitled, “Of the Seven

Sacraments;” and this gained him the new title of “Defender of the

Faith,” which Pope Leo X. bestowed upon him by a bull, and which his

successors have preserved ever since their separation from the Church of

Rome. But this zeal for the see of Rome was greatly cooled, when that

court refused to grant him the satisfaction he expected with regard to

his intended divorce from Queen Catherine. This seems to have been

Henry’s first motive of separation from that Church.

Cranmer, whom the king had raised to the see of Canterbury, in

compliance with Henry’s desire, dissolved his marriage by a sentence

pronounced May 23, 1533, without waiting for the sentence of the court

of Rome. This step made way for another. For the parliament passed a

bill, that for the future no person should appeal to the court of Rome,

in any case whatever; but that they should all be judged within the

realm by the prelates: that neither first-fruits, annates, or St.

Peter’s pence should any more be paid; nor palls, or bulls for

bishoprics, be any longer fetched from Rome: and that whoever infringed

this statute should be severely punished.

Clement VII., at that time pope, threatened Henry with excommunication,

in case he refused to acknowledge his fault, by restoring things to

their former state, and taking back his queen. However Francis I., king

of France, interposed, and, in the interview which he had with the pope

at Marseilles, he prevailed with him to suspend the excommunication,

till such time as he had employed his endeavours to make Henry return to

the obedience of the holy see. To this purpose he sent John du Bellay,

bishop of Paris, to King Henry, who gave him some hopes of his

submission, provided the pope would delay the excommunication. Clement,

though he could not refuse so just a request, yet limited the delay to

so short a time, that, before Henry could come to any determinate

resolution, the time was lapsed, and, no news coming from England,

excommunication was pronounced at Rome, and set up in all the usual

places.

The effects of this excommunication were very fatal to the see of Rome.

The pope, who began to repent of his over-hasty proceedings, found it

impossible to appease King Henry. For that monarch now threw off all

restraint, and openly separated from the see of Rome. The parliament

declared him supreme head of the Church of England, and granted him the

annates and first-fruits, the tenths of the revenues of all benefices,

and the power of nominating to all bishoprics. The parliament also

passed another act, to deprive all persons charged with treason of the

privilege of sanctuary. And thus ended the pope’s power in England, A.

D. 1534.

The king met with little or no opposition, in the prosecution of his

designs, from the laity, who had the utmost aversion and contempt for

the clergy, and were extremely scandalized at the vicious and debauched

lives of the monks. But these latter preached with great vehemence

against these innovations, and the priests prevailed with the peasants

in the North of England to rise. However the mutineers accepted of a

general pardon, laid down their arms, and took them up again; but being

defeated, and most of their leaders executed, they were obliged to

submit. John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, who had been the king’s tutor,

and the learned Sir Thomas More, lord chancellor, for refusing to

acknowledge the king’s supremacy, were beheaded.

As to King Henry himself, though he abrogated the authority of the see

of Rome in England, yet he constantly adhered to the doctrines and

principles of that Church, and even caused some Protestants to be

burned.

The ruin of the papal authority brought on a reformation in the

doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Church of England. All the

monasteries were dissolved, and the monks set adrift. The Bible was

printed in English, and set up by public authority in all the churches;

and the ceremonies of the Church were greatly altered. But King Henry,

dying in 1547, left the Reformation imperfect, and as it were in its

infancy.

In the succeeding reign, Seymour, duke of Somerset, regent and protector

during the minority of Edward VI., greatly forwarded the Reformation, in

which the parliament supported him with all their power. For he

abolished private masses, restored the cup to the laity, took away the

images out of the churches, and caused the Book of Common Prayer to be

revised and corrected. In this reign the Reformation was solemnly

confirmed by the legislature, and had the sanction of an act of both

houses of parliament. So many alterations occasioned great disorders in

the kingdom. The common people having now not so easy an opportunity of

getting a livelihood, because of the great number of monks, who being

driven out of the suppressed monasteries were obliged to work; this

fomented the discontent, insomuch that several counties of England took

up arms. But the rebels, after having been defeated in several

engagements, accepted of the general pardon that was offered them.

The Reformation met with a great interruption during the reign of Queen

Mary, who, being a bigoted Roman Catholic, began her reign with setting

at liberty the Papists, restoring the Popish prelates to their sees, and

allowing a general liberty of conscience till the sitting of the

parliament, in which an act was passed, prohibiting the exercise of any

other religion but the Roman Catholic. Having strengthened herself by a

marriage with Philip II., king of Spain, she called a new parliament, in

which Philip and herself presided. Cardinal Pole made a fine speech in

it; after which, both houses suppressed the reformed religion, and

restored the Church to the same state it was in before the divorce of

King Henry VIII. At the same time the above-mentioned cardinal

reconciled the nation to the Church of Rome, after having absolved it

from all ecclesiastical censures. Great numbers, however, still adhered

to the profession of the reformed religion; whom Queen Mary punished

with great severity, and burnt some hundreds of them, among whom were

Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, and four other bishops.

The death of Queen Mary made way for the accession of Queen Elizabeth,

and, during her reign, the reformation of the Church in these kingdoms

was established.

REFUGE. (See _Sanctuary_.)

REFUGE, CITIES OF. In the Levitical law six cities were appointed by the

command of God as cities of refuge for those who might by accident, and

without malice, unhappily slay another. There they were to dwell till

the death of the high priest; and if caught before they came thither, or

afterwards away from the city, they might be slain by the avenger of

blood. (Exod. xx. 13; Numb. xxxv. 11, &c.)

REGALE, in the French ecclesiastical law, is a right which the king had

of enjoying the revenues of vacant bishoprics, till such time as the new

prelate had taken and registered his oath of fidelity to the king; and

of presenting to all benefices, dependent on the see, during the time of

its vacancy.

Some of the French writers assert, that all the kings of France of the

first race, and some of the second, have had the entire disposal of

bishoprics throughout their dominions. This right, they say, was given

to the kings of France, by way of recompence for their protecting the

orthodox faith; and that this privilege was granted to Clovis, the first

Christian king of France, after he had defeated Alaric, an Arian prince,

by the first Council of Orleans. Other authors affirm, that this

privilege is not founded upon grant, but comes from the right of

patronage, which the king has over all the churches in his kingdom, from

his feudal right over the temporalities of benefices, and from his right

of protection of ecclesiastics and the goods of the Church. But, however

the kings of France have desisted from the right of patronage over all

the benefices of the kingdom, they still retain the right of

appropriating to themselves the revenues of vacant bishoprics; and this

is what they call the _Regale_.

This right takes place all over the kingdom, though some archbishoprics

and bishoprics have pretended to an exemption from it. The abbeys were

formerly subject thereto, but have been discharged.

REGENERATE. (See _Conversion_, _Regeneration_, _Renovation_.) Every

baptized child is called _regenerate_. There have been some very

unreasonable exceptions taken against this expression; as if all

persons, who are baptized, were truly converted, whereas several of them

prove afterwards very wicked. But this objection is grounded upon a

modern notion of the word “regeneration,” which neither the ancient

Fathers of the Church, nor the compilers of our liturgy, knew anything

of. Indeed, some writers of the last [17th] century ran into this

new-fangled phrase, to denote conversion, or a returning from a lapsed

state, after a notorious violation of the baptismal covenant, to an

habitual state of holiness. But no ancient writer, that I know of, ever

expressed this by the word “regeneration.” Regeneration, as often as it

is used in the Scripture books, signifies the _baptismal_ regeneration.

There is but one word which answers to this in the New Testament, and

that is, παλιγγενεσία; and that παλιγγενεσία refers to baptism is plain,

by having the word λουτρὸν joined with it: “According to his mercy he

saved us by the _washing of regeneration_.” (Tit. iii. 5.) Our SAVIOUR

indeed made use of the like expression, before the apostle, to

Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of

GOD.” (John iii. 3.) But what he means by being _born again_ he

explains, ver. 5, by directing it positively to baptism, “Except a man

be born _of water and of the Spirit_, he cannot enter into the kingdom

of GOD.” “Regeneration,” in the language of the Fathers, constantly

signifies the participation of the sacrament of baptism. The Greeks have

a variety of words to express regeneration by: not only ἀναγέννησις,

which is an exact translation of it; but ἀνακαίνισμος, “renovation;”

ἀνάκτισις, “recreation;” ἀνανέωσις, “renewing;” ἀνάστασις,

“resurrection;” μεταβολὴ, the “change;” μεταποίησις, the “refitting;”

παλιγγενεσία, the being “born again;” παλιντοκία, the “begetting again:”

all which expressions are used of baptism, and seldom or never of the

rise after a lapse. The language of the Latin Fathers is the same. The

Latin translator of Irenæus, which undoubtedly is very ancient,

expresses the Greek ἀναγέννησις by “regeneration:” “baptism which is a

regeneration unto GOD:” and so likewise calls the ἀναγεννήμενοι, the

baptized, “regenerati,” the “regenerate.” St. Ambrose, speaking of

baptism, expresses himself thus: “By baptism we are renewed, by which

also we are born again.” St. Austin, besides innumerable other passages,

within the compass of a few lines has several expressions all to this

purpose: he calls baptism “the spiritual regeneration;” he says the

baptized person “is born again, because he is regenerated;” and lastly

he calls baptism “the sacrament of regeneration.” And in another place

he moves a question, whether the baptism of the schismatical Donatists

does confer regeneration or not; but never doubted whether that of the

Catholics did so. But, when any of the ancients have occasion to express

a returning to GOD after a state of sin, the Greeks use the word

μετάμελεια, μετάνοια, &c. &c.; the Latins, _pœnitentia, conversio_. The

language of the schools is exactly that of the Latin Fathers in this

point; they make the effect of baptism to be a “regeneration,” or a

“generation to a spiritual life;” but the turning to GOD after a course

of sin they call, either “penitence,” or “conversion to GOD.” The most

eminent divines of the Reformation use these words in the ancient sense.

Peter Martyr uses “regeneration” for baptism; and calls the turning to

GOD, after a state of sin, the “conversion and change of a man.” Calvin,

where he designs to speak with exactness, uses “regeneration” for the

baptismal renovation, as in his catechism; though sometimes he uses it

to signify conversion: but this is but seldom; he generally, with the

ancient Latin writers, expressing this by “conversion.” When the

Quinquarticular controversy arose, and long treatises were written about

the methods of converting grace, the divines, who managed them, being

willing sometimes to vary their expressions, to make these discourses,

(dry enough in themselves,) thereby something more pleasant, began to

use “regeneration” as a synonymous word with “conversion.” But in the

Synod of Dort itself, though in some of the particular declarations of

the divines of the several countries “regeneration” and “conversion” are

used reciprocally, yet in the synodical resolutions the word

“conversion” is always used. In the sermons and books written about the

beginning of the late civil wars, “regeneration,” for “repentance” or

“conversion,” became a very fashionable word; but sometimes oddly

expressing it by “regeneration-work,” &c., they made sport for vain

people. However, by frequent use, the word has come to obtain among

grave and judicious writers, though the use of it was so very modern;

insomuch that some divines, who had their education since the

Quinquarticular controversy, and were concerned in the review of the

liturgy at the Restoration, pretended to find fault with the Common

Prayer Book for using the word “regeneration” in the ancient sense,

which it had kept for 1600 years, in opposition to theirs, which was

hardly sixty years old. And this is sufficient to justify the Common

Prayer Book expression; and, I hope, to silence all objections upon this

head.—_Dr. Nicholls._

The sense of the Church in the office for Baptism is so plain, that no

more would need to be added, but only that some with Nicodemus are apt

to say, “How can these things be?” (John iii. 9;) judging it impossible

that so great a matter as regeneration can be effected so soon, and by

no mean an instrument as they account it: whereas the effect is to be

ascribed to the Divine power of the author, not to the intrinsic

efficacy of the outward means. Yet in regard we can never bless GOD

heartily for a mercy, unless we believe he hath bestowed it, we must

labour to remove these scruples by a fuller account of this baptismal

regeneration, that we may not withhold the Divine praises, by our

doubting and unbelief. The word “regeneration” is but twice, that I know

of, used in Scripture: first, (Matt. xix. 28,) “Ye that have followed me

in the regeneration:” where, though by altering the point, “Followed me,

in the regeneration when the Son of man,” &c., it may signify the

resurrection; yet, as we read, it signifies the renewing of men by the

gospel and baptism. Secondly, (Tit. iii. 5,) “He saved us by the washing

of regeneration and renewing of the HOLY GHOST,” which is a paraphrase

upon that of our SAVIOUR, (John iii.,) “Except a man be born of water

and the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” (ver. 5).

And because persons, come to age before their conversion, are first

taught and persuaded by the word of GOD, the language of holy writ

enlarges the metaphor, and saith, such are “_begotten_ through the

gospel” (1 Cor. iv. 15); and then _born again_ or _regenerated_ in

baptism. In like manner speak the Fathers, who do constantly and

unanimously affirm, that we are regenerated in or by baptism. So that we

must next inquire, wherein this regeneration doth consist?

And first, whereas both children and those of riper years are by nature

dead in sin, so that they live under the guilt and power thereof, our

gracious FATHER doth here in baptism seal a covenant with us, wherein he

promises to pardon us; and, when this deadly load is removed, the soul

receives, as it were, a new life, and takes new hopes and courage, being

restored to the Divine favour, and being set free from the sad

expectations of condemnation for former sin, original in infants, and

both it and actual in those of riper years. Before this covenant we were

dead in law, and by the pardon of our sins we are begotten again to a

lively hope; and herein stands the first particular of our regeneration,

namely, in the remission of sins: wherefore both Scripture and antiquity

teach us, (Luke iii. 3; Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16,) that baptism is the

means for remission of sin; and hence they join pardon and regeneration

commonly together, because this forgiveness puts us into a new estate,

and an excellent condition, in comparison of that which our natural

birth had left us in.

Secondly: But further, by baptism we gain new relations, and old things

being done away, all things become new. Hence the Jews called their

proselytes “new-born children,” because they forsook all their heathen

kindred; so we, although we do not renounce our earthly parents, because

they also are Christians, yet we gain new alliances; for GOD hereby doth

become our FATHER, and JESUS our Master, and all the saints both in

heaven and earth our brethren; so that it is as if we were born over

again, since baptism doth entitle us to this celestial kindred.

But this is not all. For, thirdly, our corrupt nature is changed in

baptism, and there is a renovation effected thereby, both as to the

mortification of the old affections, and the quickening of the new, by

the HOLY SPIRIT, which is hereby given to all that put no bar or

impediment unto it. This was the ancients’ doctrine, who affirmed a real

change to be wrought, and believed the SPIRIT to be therein bestowed, as

GOD had promised, (Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26,) “That he would sprinkle clean

water upon them, and they should be clean from all their filthiness, and

then a new heart would he give them, and put a new spirit within them.”

And it is manifest, that, in the first ages of the Church, there was

abundance of gifts and graces miraculously bestowed upon Christians in

their baptism; and no doubt, if the catechumens of our days, who are of

age, would prepare themselves as strictly by repentance, fasting, and

prayer, as they of old did, they should find incomparable effects of

this sacred layer, if not in as miraculous measures, yet to as real

purposes; that is, they should be truly regenerated, and their hearts

changed by the influence of the Divine SPIRIT. But some may doubt

whether infants be regenerated in this sense, because they are not

capable of giving any evidences of their receiving the SPIRIT; nor doth

there any immediate effect of their regeneration appear: hence the

Pelagians denied it; but they are therefore condemned by the Milevitan

Council, and confuted by St. Augustine. It is confessed they can show no

visible signs of spiritual life in the operations thereof, no more can

they of their having a rational soul, for some time; and yet we know

they have the power of reason within them: and since all infants are

alike, either all do here receive a principle of new life, or none

receive it; wherefore I see no reason why we may not believe, as the

ancients did, that GOD’S grace, which is dispensed according to the

capacity of the suscipient, is here given to infants to heal their

nature, and that he bestowed on them such measures of his Spirit as they

can receive; for the malignant effects of the first Adam’s sin are not

larger than the free gift obtained by the second Adam’s righteousness.

(Rom. v. 15, 18.) And if it be asked, how it comes to pass then that so

many children do afterwards fall off to all impurity? I answer, so do

too many grown persons also; and neither infants, nor men, are so

regenerated in this life, as absolutely to extinguish the concupiscence;

for the flesh will still lust against the Spirit; but then GOD gives the

Spirit also to lust against the flesh. (Gal. v. 17, 18.) He leaves the

corruption to try and exercise us, but so that he engageth to enable us

to get the better, through this new nature planted in us, if we will

improve it, and follow the dictates of his Holy Spirit; but by neglect,

or wilful complying with the flesh, we may lose this grace again; our

gracious FATHER hath already done his part, and will do it more and

more, as the child shall be capable and willing to receive it. And, if

this seems strange to any whose opinions are taken up from later

definitions of regeneration, let them dispute with holy Cyprian, not

with me, who saith, “The grace of GOD is equally distributed in baptism,

but it may either be diminished or increased afterward, by our acts and

conversation.”

The sum is, that baptism doth seal a pardon to us for all former

transgression, and begets us again to the hope of eternal life; that it

restores us to the favour of GOD, and gives us a new relation to him;

and finally it heals our nature by the SPIRIT hereby conveyed to us:

and, though all this be upon condition of our keeping our part of the

covenant, yet that makes not GOD’S mercy less, nor ought it to diminish

any of our praises; but only it must make our prayers at present more

earnest, and the child’s care more strict hereafter to make this its

calling and election sure.

This is, I hope, the sense of our Church, as well as of the primitive;

and if so, it will not be material to a judicious Christian for any to

say, it doth not agree to some modern systems.—_Dean Comber._

REGENERATION. (See _Conversion_ and _Renovation_.) A Latin word

signifying _new birth_, or being born again. We are taught in the

catechism that “a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward

and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by CHRIST himself, as a

means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.”

And we are taught also that the inward and spiritual grace given to us,

which by means of baptism we receive, is “a death unto sin, and a new

birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin and the

children of wrath, we are hereby,” i. e. by baptism, “made children of

grace.” Hence the catechism teaches every baptized child to speak of his

baptism as that “wherein I was made a member of CHRIST, the child of

GOD, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” Hence, in perfect

consistency with the catechism, the minister, immediately after the

administration of this sacrament to a child, addresses the congregation

thus: “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is

regenerate, and grafted into the body of CHRIST’S Church, let us give

thanks unto ALMIGHTY GOD for these benefits; and with one accord make

our prayers unto him, that _this child_ may lead the rest of _his_ life

according to _this beginning_.” And he returns thanks to our merciful

FATHER, that it hath pleased him “to regenerate this infant with thy

Holy Spirit.” In the office of Private Baptism of Infants, the connexion

between holy baptism and regeneration is, if possible, still more

expressly asserted, for the priest, with reference to the baptism

performed in private, is taught to say, on the receiving of the infant

into the Church, “seeing now that this child is by baptism _regenerate_,

and _grafted_ into the body of CHRIST’S Church.” In the office for the

Baptism of such as are of Riper Years, the connexion between baptism and

regeneration is as closely observed. To many persons this doctrine is

very offensive. We believe that it is repudiated by all dissenters

except the Romish, who, amidst their many errors, retain this

evangelical truth. As an answer to the objections urged against this

scriptural doctrine, we shall quote the words of the late Mr. Simeon, of

Cambridge; we do so, because we have seldom seen the truth more briefly

vindicated. The following passage is from his Works, vol. ii. p. 259.

“In the baptismal service, _we thank_ GOD _for having regenerated the

baptized infant by his Holy Spirit_. Now from hence it appears that, _in

the opinion of our reformers, regeneration and remission of sins did

accompany baptism_. But in what sense did they hold this sentiment? Did

they maintain that there was no need for the seed then sown in the heart

of the baptized person to grow up and to bring forth fruit; or that he

could be saved in any other way than by a progressive renovation of his

soul after the Divine image? Had they asserted any such doctrine as

that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened person to concur

with them. But nothing can be conceived more repugnant to their

sentiments than such an idea as this; so far from harbouring such a

thought, they have, and that too in this very prayer, taught us to look

to GOD for that total change, both of heart and life, which _long since

their days has begun to be expressed_ by the term regeneration. _After

thanking_ GOD _for regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit_, we are

taught to pray, ‘that he, being dead unto sin, and living unto

righteousness, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole

body of sin;’ and then declaring the total change to be the necessary

mean of his obtaining salvation, we add, ‘so that finally, with the

residue of thy holy Church, he _may_ be an inheritor of thine

everlasting kingdom.’ Is there (I would ask) any person that can require

more? There are two things to be noticed in reference to this subject,

the _term_ regeneration and the _thing_. The term occurs but twice in

the Scriptures; in one place it refers to baptism, and is distinguished

from the renewing of the HOLY GHOST, _which, however, is represented as

attendant on it_; and, in the other place, it has a totally distinct

meaning, unconnected with the subject. Now the _term_ they use as the

_Scripture _uses it, and the _thing_ they require as strongly as any

person can require it. They do not give us any reason to imagine that an

adult person can be saved without experiencing all that modern divines

[_ultra-Protestant divines_] have included in the term regeneration; on

the contrary, they do, both there and in the liturgy, insist upon a

radical change of both heart and life. Here, then, the only question is,

not ‘whether a baptized person can be saved by that ordinance without

sanctification,’ but whether GOD does always accompany the sign with the

thing signified? Here is certainly room for difference of opinion, _but

it cannot be positively decided in the negative_; because we cannot

know, or even judge, respecting it, in any case whatever, except by the

fruits that follow; and therefore, in all fairness, it may be considered

only as a doubtful point; and if we appeal, as we ought to do, to the

Holy Scriptures, they certainly do, in _a very remarkable way, accord

with the expressions in our liturgy_. St. Paul says, ‘By one Spirit we

are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether

we be bond or free; and have been all made to _drink into one_ Spirit.’

And this he says of all the visible members of CHRIST’S body. (1 Cor.

xii. 13, 27.) Again, speaking of the whole nation of Israel, infants as

well as adults, he says, ‘They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud

and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all

drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock

that followed them, and _that rock was_ CHRIST.’ (1 Cor. x. 1–4.) Yet,

behold, in the very next verse he tells us that, ‘with many of them GOD

was displeased, and overthrew them in the wilderness.’ In another place

he speaks yet more strongly still: ‘As many of you,’ says he, ‘as are

baptized into CHRIST, have put on CHRIST.’ Here we see what is meant by

the same expression as that before mentioned, of the Israelites being

‘baptized _into_ Moses (the preposition εἰς is used in both places): it

includes all that had been initiated into his religion by the rite of

baptism; and of them universally does the apostle say, ‘_they have put

on_ CHRIST.’ Now I ask, have not the persons who scruple the use of that

prayer in the baptismal service, equal reason to scruple the use of

these different expressions?

“Again; St. Peter says, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you _for

the remission of sins_.’ (Acts ii. 38.) And in another place, ‘Baptism

doth now save us.’ (1 Pet. iii. 21.) And speaking elsewhere of baptized

persons who are unfruitful in the knowledge of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, he

says, ‘_He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins_.’ (2

Pet. i. 9.) _Does not this very strongly countenance the_ IDEA WHICH OUR

REFORMERS ENTERTAINED, THAT THE REMISSION OF OUR SINS AND THE

REGENERATION OF OUR SOULS, IS ATTENDANT ON THE BAPTISMAL RITE?”

The importance of holding this doctrine, besides its being scripturally

true, must be at once apparent to those who reflect, that the whole

moral education of a Christian people is altered, if instead of teaching

them, as we ought to do, that GOD _has_ given them a gift which they may

use to their own salvation, but for losing which they will be awfully

punished,—if instead of this we tell them to wait and to expect the gift

of grace, before receiving which they cannot please GOD. The orthodox

would preach to all baptized persons, telling them that they may and can

serve GOD if they will: the heterodox would address baptized persons as

heathens, and warn them that, until they have an effectual calling, they

can do nothing. It is easy to trace much of the evil which disgraces the

religion of the present day to the prevalence of the latter notion.

At the Savoy Commission, 1661, the following are among the answers of

the bishops to the exceptions of ministers.

“Receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration.” Most proper, for

baptism is our spiritual regeneration, (John iii. 5,) “Unless a man be

born again of water and the Spirit,” &c. And by this is received

remission of sins, (Acts ii. 38,) “Repent and be baptized every one of

you for the remission of sins.” So the Creed: “our baptism for the

remission of sins.”

Seeing that GOD’S sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth

not “ponere obicem,” put any bar against them (which children cannot

do); we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is

regenerated by GOD’S HOLY SPIRIT; and the denial of it tends to

Anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament, as nothing worthy,

nor material whether it be administered to children or no.

[The form of Confirmation] supposeth, and that truly, that all children

were at their baptism regenerate by water and the Holy Ghost, and had

given unto them forgiveness of all their sins; and it is charitably

presumed, that notwithstanding the frailties and slips of their

childhood, they have not totally lost what was in baptism conferred upon

them.—_Cardwell’s Hist. of Conferences_, pp. 356, 358.

REGISTER. The keeping of a church book for registering the age of those

that should be born and christened in the parish began in the thirtieth

year of Henry VIII.

By Canon 70. “In every parish church and chapel within this realm shall

be provided one parchment book at the charge of the parish, wherein

shall be written the day and year of every christening, wedding, and

burial, which have been in the parish since the time that the law was

first made in that behalf, so far as the ancient books thereof can be

procured, but especially since the beginning of the reign of the late

queen. And for the safe keeping of the said book, the churchwardens, at

the charge of the parish, shall provide one sure coffer, and three locks

and keys; whereof one to remain with the minister, and the other two

with the churchwardens severally; so that neither the minister without

the two churchwardens, nor the churchwardens without the minister, shall

at any time take that book out of the said coffer. And henceforth upon

every sabbath day immediately after morning or evening prayer, the

minister and the churchwardens shall take the said parchment book out of

the said coffer, and the minister in the presence of the churchwardens

shall write and record in the said book the names of all persons

christened, together with the names and surnames of their parents, and

also the names of all persons married and buried in that parish in the

week before, and the day and year of every such christening, marriage,

and burial; and that done, they shall lay up the book in the coffer as

before. And the minister and churchwardens, unto every page of that

book, when it shall be filled with such inscriptions, shall subscribe

their names. And the churchwardens shall once every year, within one

month after the five and twentieth day of March, transmit unto the

bishop of the diocese, or his chancellor, a true copy of the names of

all persons christened, married, or buried in their parish in the year

before, (ended the said five and twentieth day of March,) and the

certain days and months in which every christening, marriage, and burial

was had, to be subscribed to with the hands of the said minister and

churchwardens, to the end the same may faithfully be preserved in the

registry of the said bishop; which certificate shall be received without

fee. And if the minister and churchwardens shall be negligent in

performance of anything herein contained, it shall be lawful for the

bishop, or his chancellor, to convent them, and proceed against every of

them as contemners of this our constitution.”

The Act 52 Geo. III. c. 146, (A. D. 1812,) directs that “registers of

public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials, solemnized

according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland ...

shall be made and kept by the rector, vicar, curate, or officiating

minister of every parish (or of any chapelry) where the ceremonies of

baptism, marriage, and burial, have been usually, and may according to

law be, performed for the time being, in books of parchment, or of good

and durable paper, to be provided by his Majesty’s printer as occasion

may require, at the expense of the respective parishes or chapelries;

whereon shall be printed, upon each side of every leaf, the heads of

information herein required to be entered in the registers” (agreeably

to schedules annexed to the act). Such registers should be kept in

separate books, and every minister shall enter the baptism, or burial,

as soon as possible, and shall sign the same; “and in no case, unless

prevented by sickness, or other unavoidable impediment, later than

within seven days after the ceremony of any such baptism, or burial,

shall have taken place.” (Sect. 3.)

“Whenever the ceremony of baptism, or burial, shall be performed in any

other place than the parish church, or churchyard of any parish, (or the

chapel, or chapel-yard of any chapelry, providing its own distinct

registers,) and such ceremony shall be performed by any minister not

being the rector, vicar, minister, or curate of any such parish or

chapelry, the minister who shall perform such ceremony of baptism or

burial shall, on the same, or on the next day, transmit to the rector,

vicar, or other minister of such parish or chapelry, or his curate, a

certificate of such baptism or burial in the form contained in the

schedule (D.) to this act annexed, and the rector, vicar, minister, or

curate of such parish or chapelry, shall thereupon enter such baptism or

burial according to such certificate in the book kept pursuant to this

act for such purpose; and shall add to such entry the following words,

‘According to the certificate of the Reverend ——, transmitted to me on

the —— day of ——.’”

“_I do hereby certify, that I did on the —— day of —— baptize, according

to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland, ——, son [or

“daughter”] of —— and ——, his wife, by the name of ——._”

_To the Rector_ [or, as the case may be,] _of ——._

“_‘I do hereby certify, that on the —— day of —— A. B. of ——, aged ——,

was buried in_ [stating the place of burial], _and that the ceremony of

burial was performed according to the rites of the United Church of

England and Ireland, by me, ——._

_To the Rector_ [or, as the case may be,] _of ——_.’” (Sect. 4.)

Sect. 5 directs, that the new registers, and also those previously

existing, shall be kept by the minister of the parish, “in a dry,

well-painted, iron chest, to be provided, and repaired as occasion may

require, at the cost of the parish; which chest shall be constantly kept

locked in some dry, safe, and secure place within the usual place of

residence of such minister, or in the parish church or chapel.”

Sect. 6 directs, that within two months after the expiration of every

year, four copies of the registers for the preceding year shall be made

on parchment by the clergyman, “or by the churchwardens, chapelwardens,

clerk, or other person duly appointed for the purpose, under, and by the

direction of, such rector, vicar, curate, or other resident or

officiating minister.” The copies are to be verified and signed by the

clergyman in a prescribed form, and his signature is to be attested by

the churchwardens or chapelwardens, or one of them. These copies are to

be sent by post to the diocesan registrars. (Sect. 7.) In case of the

minister’s neglecting to verify the copies, the churchwardens shall

certify his default to the registrar, by whom it shall be reported to

the bishop. (Sect. 9.) Any person convicted of falsifying a register, or

allowing it to be falsified, shall be subject to transportation for

fourteen years. (Sect. 14.)

Sect. 16 provides, that the act shall not affect the fees payable to any

minister for giving extracts of registers, &c.

The act of 52 Geo. III. is still in force as regards the registration of

baptisms and burials by clergymen. But as to marriages, an alteration

has been made by the acts 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 80, and 7 Will. IV., and 1

Vic. c. 22. By the former of these acts the general civil registry was

instituted. Sect. 30 orders, that the Registrar-general shall, at the

expense of the parish or chapelry, furnish the rector, vicar, or curate,

of every church and chapel in which marriages may lawfully be

solemnized, duplicate register books and forms for certified copies

thereof. Sect. 31, that every clergyman, immediately after every office

of matrimony solemnized by him, shall register in duplicate the several

particulars relating to that marriage, according to a new form, annexed

in a schedule to the act. Sect. 33, (explained by 7 Will. IV., and 1

Vic. c. 22,) that the clergyman of every church or chapel shall, in the

months of April, July, October, and January respectively, make and

deliver to the registrar of his district a true copy, certified by him

under his hand, of all the entries of marriages in the register book

kept by him for the three months preceding, to the last days of March,

June, September, and December respectively; and if there shall have been

no marriage since the last certificate, shall certify the fact under his

hand; and that one copy of each duplicate register book shall, when

filled, be delivered to the superintendent-registrar of the district.

Sect. 27 of the act of 1 Vic. provides, that for every entry in the

quarterly certified copies the clergyman shall receive sixpence from the

registrar, which sum is to be repaid to the registrar by the guardians

or overseers of his district.

By the act of 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 86, sect. 42, 43, any person who shall

refuse, or without reasonable cause omit, to register any marriage

solemnized by him, or which he ought to register, and every person

having the custody of any register book, who shall carelessly lose or

injure the same, or carelessly allow the same to be injured while in his

keeping, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding £50 for every such offence;

and any person who shall wilfully destroy, injure, or in any way falsify

any register book, or shall wilfully give any false certificate or

extract, shall be guilty of felony.

REGIUM DONUM MONEY. Money allowed by government to the Dissenters. The

origin of it was in the year 1723. As the Dissenters approved themselves

strong friends to the House of Brunswick, they enjoyed favour; and,

being excluded all lucrative preferment in the Church, the prime

minister wished to reward them for their loyalty, and, by a retaining

fee, to preserve them steadfast. A considerable sum, therefore, was

annually lodged with the heads of the Presbyterians, Independents, and

Baptists, to be distributed among the necessitous ministers of their

congregations.

REGULAR. In the continental churches those persons are called _regulars_

who profess to follow a certain _rule_ (_regula_) of life, and observe

the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; in contradistinction

to the _seculars_, who live comparatively in the world. The canons of

the non-monastic cathedrals were called seculars.

RELICS. In the Roman Church, the remains of the bodies or clothes of

saints or martyrs, and the instruments by which they were put to death,

are devoutly preserved, in honour of their memory; kissed, revered, and

carried in procession. The respect which was justly due to the martyrs

and teachers of the Christian faith, in a few ages, increased almost to

adoration; and at length adoration was really paid both to departed

saints, and to relics of holy men or holy things. The abuses of the

Church of Rome with respect to relics are very great and flagrant, and

are justly censured in our 22nd Article.

In the early ages of the gospel, when its professors were exposed to

every species of danger and persecution, it was natural for Christians

to show every mark of respect, both to the bodies and to the memory of

those who had suffered death in its cause. They collected their remains

and buried them, not only with decency, but with all the solemnity and

honour which circumstances would allow. It was also the custom for

Christians to hold their religious meetings at the places where their

martyrs were buried, by which they seemed as it were, united with them;

and to display their attachment to their departed brethren by such

rites, as were dictated by the fervour of their devout affection, and

were consistent with the principles of their religion. It does not

appear that this boundary was ever transgressed in the three first

centuries; but in the fourth century, when the pure and simple worship

of the gospel begun to be debased by superstitious practices, we find

strong proofs of an excessive love for everything which had belonged to

those who had distinguished themselves by their exertions or their

sufferings for the truth of Christianity, and especially for any part of

their garments, hair, or bones. Augustine in Africa, and Vigilantius in

Spain, complained loudly of this culpable fondness for relics, which

they speak of as a new corruption, then first appearing in the Christian

world; but the warm disposition of Jerome led him to stand forward in

their defence with more zeal than discretion. However, this learned

Father, even while he leans to the opinion that miracles were sometimes

wrought by relics, explicitly disclaims all idea of offering them

worship. But, when superstition has once made its way into the minds of

men, it gradually gains ground; and it is difficult to set limits to it,

particularly when there is a set of persons, respected for their piety,

who are studious to encourage it. Monks carried about relics; and with

great ease, and no small advantage to themselves, persuaded that

ignorant age of their value and importance. Under their recommendation

and patronage, they were soon considered as the best preservatives

against every possible evil of soul and body; and when the worshipping

of images came to be established, the enshrining of relics was a natural

consequence of that doctrine. This led the way to absolute worship of

relics, which was now preached by the Romish clergy as a Christian duty.

Every one thought it necessary to possess a relic of some saint or

martyr, as the effectual means of securing his care and protection; and

fraud and imposition did not fail to furnish a supply proportionable to

the demand. The discovery of the catacombs at Rome was an inexhaustible

source of relics; and thus the popes themselves became directly

interested in maintaining this superstitious worship. The Council of

Trent authorized the adoration of relics; and they continue in high

esteem among the Papists of the present day. What has been already said

is amply sufficient to point out the absurdity of worshipping relics. It

is a doctrine manifestly “grounded upon no warranty of Scripture:” it is

“a fond thing,” that is, foolish and trifling, in the extreme; directly

contrary to the practice of the primitive Christians, and utterly

irreconcileable with common sense.—_Bp. Tomline._

RELIGIOUS. This was the term given in our Church before the Reformation

to persons engaged by solemn vows to the monastic life. It is still used

in this sense on the Continent, and among the Popish Recusants.

REMONSTRANTS. (See _Arminians_.) This name was given to the Arminians,

because in 1610 they presented a remonstrance to the states-general of

Holland and West Friesland, specifying their grievances.

RENOVATION. Regeneration is the joint work of water and the SPIRIT, or,

to speak more properly, of the SPIRIT only; renovation is the joint work

of the SPIRIT and the man. Regeneration comes only once, in or through

baptism. Renovation exists before, in, and after baptism, and may be

often repeated. Regeneration, being a single act, can have no parts, and

is incapable of increase. Renovation is, in its very nature,

progressive. Regeneration, though suspended as to its effects and

benefits, cannot be totally lost in the present life. Renovation may be

often repeated and totally lost. Dr. Waterland distinguishes between

regeneration and renovation thus:—

1. Grown persons coming to baptism properly qualified, receive at once

the grace of regeneration; but, however well prepared, they are not

regenerate without baptism. Afterwards renovation grows more and more

within them by the indwelling of the SPIRIT.

2. As to infants, their innocence and incapacity are to them instead of

repentance, which they do not want, and of actual faith, which they

cannot have: and they are capable of being born again, and adopted by

GOD, because they bring no obstacle. They stipulate, and the HOLY SPIRIT

translates them out of a state of nature into a state of grace, favour,

and acceptance. In their case, regeneration precedes, and renovation

follows after, and they are the temple of the SPIRIT till they defile

themselves with sin.

3. As to those who fall off after regeneration, their covenant state

abides, but without any saving effect, because without present

renovation: but this saving effect may be repaired and recovered by

repentance.

4. With respect to those who receive baptism in a state of hypocrisy or

impenitency, though this sacrament can only increase their condemnation,

still pardon and grace are conditionally made over to them, and the

saving virtue of regeneration, which had been hitherto suspended, takes

effect, when they truly repent and unfeignedly believe the gospel.

RENUNCIATION. In holy baptism, the persons baptized, or in the case of

infants their sponsors in their name, are asked, “Dost thou renounce the

devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all

covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so

that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?” And their answer is, “_I

renounce them all_.” This renunciation is of very great antiquity, so

great indeed that its beginning cannot be traced, nor any time mentioned

when it was not used; so that it is probably of apostolic origin.

REPAIRS OF CHURCHES. Anciently the bishops had the whole tithes of the

diocese; a fourth part of which, in every parish, was to be applied to

the repairs of the church; but, upon a release of this interest to the

rectors, they were consequently acquitted of the repairs of the

churches.

And by the canon law, the repair of the church belongeth to him who

receiveth this fourth part; that is, to the rector, and not to the

parishioners.

But custom (that is, the common law) transferreth the burden of

reparation, at least of the nave of the church, upon the parishioners;

and likewise sometimes of the chancel, as particularly in the city of

London in many churches there.

But, generally, the parson is bound to repair the chancel. Not because

the freehold is in him, for so is the freehold of the church; but by the

custom of England, which hath allotted the repairs of the chancel to the

parson, and the repairs of the church to the parishioners: yet so, that

if the custom hath been for the parish, or the estate of a particular

person, to repair the chancel, that custom shall be good.

As to the vicars, it is ordained by a constitution of Archbishop

Winchelsea, that the chancel shall be repaired by the rectors and

vicars, or others to whom such repair belongeth. Whereupon Lyndwood

observes, that where there is both rector and vicar in the same church,

they shall contribute in proportion to their benefice; which is to be

understood where there is not a certain direction, order, or custom,

unto which of them such reparation shall appertain.

And as rectors or spiritual persons, so also impropriators, are bound of

common right to repair the chancels. This doctrine (under the

limitations expressed in the foregoing paragraphs) is clear and

uncontested: the only difficulty hath been in what manner they shall be

compelled to do it; whether by spiritual censures only, in like manner

as the parishioners are compelled to contribute to the repairs of the

church, since impropriations are now become lay fees; or whether by

sequestrations (as incumbents, and, as it should seem, spiritual

impropriators of all kinds, may be compelled).

As to this, it is said to have been the opinion of the court of Common

Pleas, that the Spiritual Court may grant sequestration upon an

impropriate parsonage, for not repairing the chancel (M. 29. C. 2. 3

_Keb._ 829); yet by another book it is said, that the court of Common

Pleas did incline that there could be no sequestration; for, being made

a lay fee, the impropriation was out of the jurisdiction of the court

Christian, and they were only to proceed against the person, as against

another layman, for not repairing the church. (T. 22. C. 2. 2 _Vent._

35.) And by the same case as reported, (2 _Mod._ 157,) it is said that

the whole court, except Judge Atkins, were of that opinion.

On the contrary, Dr. Gibson observes, that impropriations, before they

became lay fees, were undoubtedly liable to sequestration; that the king

was to enjoy them in the same manner as the religious had done, and

nothing was conveyed to the king at the dissolution of monasteries, but

what the religious had conveyed; that is, the profits over and above the

finding of Divine service, and the repairing of the chancel, and other

ecclesiastical burdens: and the general saving (he says) in the 31 Henry

VIII. c. 13, may be well extended to a saving of the right of the

ordinary in this particular, which right he undoubtedly had by the law

and the practice of the Church, which said right is not abrogated by any

statute whatsoever. And he observes further these things: 1. That

although (as was expressly alleged in the two cases above referred to)

this power had been frequently exercised by the spiritual courts, yet no

instances do appear, before these, of any opposition made. 2. That, in

both the said instances, judgment was given, not upon the matter or

point in hand, but upon errors found in the pleadings. 3. That one

argument against the allowing the ordinary such jurisdiction was _ab

inconvenienti_, that such allowance would be a step towards giving

ordinaries a power to augment vicarages, as they might have done, and

frequently did, before the dissolution.

Where there are more impropriators than one, (as is frequently the

case,) and the prosecution is to be carried on by the churchwardens to

compel them to repair, it seemeth advisable for the churchwardens first

to call a vestry, and there (after having made a rate for the repair of

the church, and other expenses necessary in the execution of their

office) that the vestry make an order for the churchwardens to prosecute

the impropriators, at the parish expense; in which prosecution the court

will not settle the proportion amongst the impropriators, but admonish

all who are made parties to the suit, to repair the chancel, under pain

of excommunication. Nor will it be necessary to make every impropriator

a party, but only to prove that the parties prosecuted have received

tithes or other profits belonging to the rectory, sufficient to repair

it; and they must settle the proportion among themselves: for it is not

a suit against them for a sum of money, but for a neglect of the duty

which is incumbent on all of them; though it may be advisable to make as

many of them parties as can be come at with certainty.

Repairing of the chancel is a discharge from contributing to the repairs

of the church. This is supposed to be the known law of the Church, in

the gloss of John de Athon upon a constitution of Othobon, (hereafter

mentioned,) for the reparation of chancels; and is also evident from the

ground of the respective obligations upon parson and parishioners to

repair, the first the chancel, the second the church, which was

evidently a division of the burden, and by consequence a mutual

disengaging of each from that part which the other took. And therefore

as it was declared in Serjeant Davie’s case, (2 _Roll’s Rep._ 211,) that

there could be no doubt but the impropriator was rateable to the church,

for lands which were not parcel of the parsonage, notwithstanding his

obligation as parson to repair the chancel; so, when this plea of the

farmer of an impropriation, (2 _Keb._ 730, 742,) to be exempt from the

parish rate because he repaired the chancel, was refused in the

spiritual court, it must probably have been a plea offered to exempt

other possessions also from church rates.—_Gibs._ 199, 200.

If there be a chapel of ease within a parish, and some part of the

parish have used time out of mind, alone, without others of the

parishioners, to repair the chapel of ease, and there to hear service,

and to marry, and all the other things, but only they bury at the

mother-church, yet they shall not be discharged of the reparation of the

mother-church, but ought to contribute thereto; for the chapel was

ordained only for their ease.

So in the said case, if the inhabitants who have used to repair the

chapel prescribe that they have time out of mind used to repair the

chapel, and by reason thereof have been discharged of the reparation of

the mother-church, yet this shall not discharge them of the reparation

of the mother-church, for that is not any direct prescription to be

discharged thereof, but it is, by reason thereof, a prescription for the

reparation of the chapel.

If the chapel be three miles distant from the mother-church, and the

inhabitants who have used to come to the chapel, have used always to

repair the chapel, and there marry and bury, and have never within sixty

years been charged to the repair of the mother-church, yet this is not

any cause to have a prohibition; but they ought to show in the spiritual

court their exemption, if they have any, upon the endowment.

But if the inhabitants of a chapelry prescribe to be discharged _time

out of mind_ of the reparation of the mother-church, and they are sued

for the reparation of the mother-church, a prohibition lieth upon this

surmise.

If two churches be united, the repairs of the several churches shall be

made as they were before the union.

_Othobon._ The archdeacon shall cause chancels to be repaired by those

who are bound thereunto.—_Ath._ 112.

_Reynolds._ We enjoin the archdeacons and their officials, that, in the

visitation of churches, they have a diligent regard to the fabric of the

church, and especially of the chancel, to see if they want repair; and

if they find any defects of that kind, they shall limit a certain time

under a penalty, within which they shall be repaired. Also, they shall

inquire by themselves or their officials in the parish where they visit,

if there be aught in things or persons which wanteth to be corrected:

and if they shall find any such, they shall correct the same, either

then, or in the next chapter.—_Lyndw._

The fabric of the church consisteth of the walls, windows, and

covering.—_Lyndw._

Where the penalty is not limited, the same is arbitrary (saith

Lyndwood): but this cannot intend here (he says) the penalty of

excommunication; inasmuch as it concerneth the parishioners _ut

universos_, as a body or whole society, who are bound to the fabric of

the body of the church: for the pain of excommunication is not inflicted

upon a whole body together, although it may be inflicted upon every

person severally who shall be culpable in this behalf. And the same may

be observed as to the penalty of suspension which cannot fall upon the

parishioners as a community or collective body. Yet the archdeacon in

this case, if the defect be enormous, may enjoin a penalty, that, after

the limited time shall be expired, Divine service shall not be performed

in the church, until competent reparation shall be made; so that the

parishioners may be punished by suspension or interdict of the place.

But if there are any particular persons who are bound to contribute

towards the repair, and although they be able, are not willing, or do

neglect the same, such persons may be compelled by a monition to such

contribution, under pain of excommunication, that so the church may not

continue for a long time unrepaired, through their default.—_Lyndw._

But this was before the time that churchwardens had the special charge

of the repairs of the church; and it seemeth now that the process shall

issue against the churchwardens, and that they may be excommunicated for

disobedience.

_Stratford._ Forasmuch as archdeacons and other ordinaries in their

visitations, finding defects as well in the churches as in the ornaments

thereof, and the fences of the churchyard, and in the houses of the

incumbents, do command them to be repaired under pecuniary penalties;

and from those that do not obey do exact the same penalties by censures,

wherewith the said defects ought to be repaired, and thereby enrich

their own purses to the damage of the poor people; therefore that there

be no occasion of complaint against the archdeacons and other ordinaries

and their ministers by reason of such penal exactions, and that it

becometh not ecclesiastical persons to gape after or enrich themselves

with dishonest and penal acquisitions; we ordain, that such penalties,

so often as they shall be exacted, shall be converted to the use of such

repairs, under pain of suspension _ab officio_ which they shall _ipso

facto_ incur, until they shall effectually assign what was so received

to the reparation of the said defects.—_Lyndw._

By Canon 86. “Every dean, dean and chapter, archdeacon, and others which

have authority to hold ecclesiastical visitations by composition, law,

or prescription, shall survey the churches of his or their jurisdiction

once in every three years, in his own person, or cause the same to be

done.”

And by the said canon they were required, from time to time, to certify

the high commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, every year, of such

defects in any of the said churches as he or they should find to remain

unrepaired, and the names and surnames of the parties faulty therein.

Upon which certificate the high commissioners were desired by the said

canon, _ex officio mero_, to send for such parties, and compel them to

obey the just and lawful decrees of the ecclesiastical ordinaries making

such certificates. But by the 16 Car. I. c. 11, the High Commission

Court was abolished; so that the cognizance thereof now resteth solely

upon the ecclesiastical judge.

By the statute of _Circumspecte agatis_, (13 Edward I. st. iv.,) “If

prelates do punish for that the church is uncovered, or not conveniently

decked, the spiritual judge shall have power to take knowledge,

notwithstanding the king’s prohibition.”

“The Church.” This is intended not only of the body of the church, which

is parochial, but also of any public chapel annexed to it; but it

extendeth not to the private chapel of any, though it be fixed to the

church, for that must be repaired by him that hath the proper use of it,

for he that hath the profit ought to bear the burden.

Canon 85. “The churchwardens or questmen shall take care and provide,

that the churches be well and sufficiently repaired, and so from time to

time kept and maintained, that the windows be well glazed, and that the

floors be kept paved, plain, and even.”

If the churchwardens erect or add anything new in the church, as a new

gallery where there was none before, they must have the consent of the

major part of the parishioners, and also a licence of the ordinary.

But as to the common reparations of the fabric or ornaments of the

church, where nothing new is added or done, it doth not appear that any

consent of the major part of the parishioners is necessary; for to this

the churchwardens are bound by their office, and they are punishable if

they do it not. (See however _Rate_.)

If the major part of the parishioners of a parish, where there are four

bells, agree that there shall be made a fifth bell, and this is made

accordingly, and they make a rate for paying the same, this shall bind

the lesser part of the parishioners, although they agree not to it: for

otherwise any obstinate persons may hinder anything intended to be done

for the ornament of the church.

And although churchwardens are not charged with the repairs of the

chancel, yet they are charged with the supervisal thereof, to see that

it be not permitted to dilapidate and fall into decay; and when any such

dilapidations shall happen, if no care be taken to repair the same, they

are to make presentment thereof at the next visitation.

If a church be so much out of repair, that it is necessary to pull it

down; or so small, that it needs to be enlarged; the major part of the

parishioners, having first obtained the consent of the ordinary to do

what is needful, and meeting upon due notice, may make a rate for new

building, or enlarging, as there shall be occasion. This was declared in

the 29 Car. II. by all the three courts successively, notwithstanding

the cause was much laboured by a great number of Quakers, who opposed

the rate.

And the proper method of proceeding in such case seems to be thus:

namely, that the churchwardens first of all take care that public notice

be given in the church for a general vestry of the whole parish for that

purpose; which notice ought to be attested and carefully preserved, as

being the foundation of all the subsequent proceedings. At the time and

place of meeting, the minister and churchwardens ought to attend; and

when the parishioners are assembled, the minister is proper to preside;

and he, or one of the churchwardens, or such person as shall be

appointed by them, ought to enter the orders of the vestry, and then

have them read and signed. And agreeable thereunto, a petition to the

ordinary for a faculty (setting forth the particulars) should be drawn

up and signed by the minister, churchwardens, and parishioners present,

and approving thereof. Whereupon the ordinary will issue a monition to

cite all persons concerned to show cause why a faculty should not be

granted. Upon the return of which citation, if no cause, or not

sufficient cause, is showed, the ordinary will proceed to grant a

faculty as is desired, and as to him shall seem good.

REPENTANCE (see _Penitence_, _Penance_) signifies a sincere sorrow for

all past transgressions of GOD’S laws, an unfeigned disposition of mind

to perform the will of GOD better for the future, and an actual avoiding

and resisting of those temptations to sin by which we have been

overpowered.

REREDOS. A screen behind an altar. In large conventual churches, where

there is a space behind the high altar, this was the universal

termination of the ritual presbytery; and sometimes, as at Winchester,

St. Alban’s, and Durham, this screen was of extreme magnificence. In

smaller churches, where the reredos was not required, the altar being at

the extreme east, it is seldom found, though an arcade, or other

enrichment of the space beneath and at the sides of the east window,

sometimes occurs.

RESIDENCE. 1. _Otho._ The bishop shall provide, that in every church

there shall be one resident, who shall take care of the cure of souls,

and exercise himself profitably and honestly in performing Divine

service and administration of the sacraments.—_Athon_ 36.

The rule of the ancient canon law was, that if a clergyman deserted

his church or prebend, without just and necessary cause, and

especially without the consent of the diocesan, he should be deprived.

And agreeable hereunto was the practice in this realm; for though

sometimes the bishop proceeded only to sequestration, or other

censures of an inferior nature, yet the more frequent punishment was

deprivation.—_Gibson_, 827.

2. Regularly, personal residence is required of ecclesiastical persons

upon their cures; and to that end, by the common law, if he that hath a

benefice with cure be chosen to an office of bailiff, or beadle, or the

like secular office, he may have the king’s writ for his discharge.—2

_Inst._ 625.

For the intendment of the common law is, that a clerk is resident upon

his cure; insomuch that in an action of debt brought against J. S.,

rector of D., the defendant pleading that he was demurrant and

conversant at B. in another county, the plea was overruled; for, since

the defendant denied not that he was rector of the church of D., he

shall be deemed by law to be demurrant and conversant there for the cure

of souls.—2 _Inst._

3. By the statute of the _Articuli cleri_, (9 _Edw._ II. st. i. c. 8,)

in the articles exhibited by the clergy, one is as follows: Also barons

of the king’s Exchequer, claiming by their privilege, that they ought to

make answer to no complainant out of the same place, do extend the same

privilege unto clerks abiding there, called to orders or unto residence,

and inhibit ordinaries that by no means, or for any cause, so long as

they be in the Exchequer, or in the king’s services, they shall not call

them to judgment. “Unto which it is answered,” It pleaseth our lord the

king, that such clerks as attend in his service, if they offend, shall

be correct by their ordinaries, like as other; but so long as they are

occupied about the Exchequer, they shall not be bound to keep residence

in their churches. And this is added of new by the king’s council: “The

king and his ancestors, since time out of mind, have used that clerks

which are employed in his service, during such time as they are in

service, shall not be compelled to keep residence at their benefices;

and such things as be thought necessary for the king and commonwealth,

ought not to be said to be prejudicial to the liberty of the Church.”

By the 21 _Hen._ VIII. c. 13, commonly called the _statute of

Non-residence_: As well every spiritual person, now being promoted to

any archdeaconry, deanery, or dignity in any monastery, or cathedral

church, or other church conventual or collegiate, or being beneficed

with any parsonage or vicarage; as all and every spiritual person and

persons, which hereafter shall be promoted to any of the said dignities

or benefices, with any parsonage or vicarage, shall be personally

resident and abiding in, at, and upon his said dignity, prebend, or

benefice, or at any one of them at the least; and in case he shall not

keep residence at one of them as aforesaid, but absent himself wilfully

by the space of one month together, or by the space of two months to be

at several times in any one year, and make his residence and abiding in

any other places by such time, he shall forfeit for every such default

£10, half to the king, and half to him that will sue for the same in any

of the king’s courts by original writ of debt, bill, plaint, or

information, in which action and suit the defendant shall not wage his

law, nor have any essoin or protection allowed. (S. 26.)

And if any person or persons shall procure at the court of Rome, or

elsewhere, any licence or dispensation to be non-resident at their said

dignities, prebends, or benefices, contrary to this act; every such

person, putting in execution any such dispensation or licence for

himself, shall incur the penalty of £20 for every time so doing, to be

forfeited and recovered as aforesaid, and such licence or dispensation

shall be void. (S. 27.)

Provided that this act of non-residence shall not extend nor be

prejudicial to any such spiritual person as shall chance to be in the

king’s service beyond the sea, nor to any person going to any pilgrimage

or holy place beyond the sea, during the time that they shall so be in

the king’s service, or in the pilgrimage going and returning home; nor

to any scholar or scholars being conversant and abiding for study,

without fraud or covin, at any university within this realm or without;

nor to any of the chaplains of the king or queen, daily or quarterly

attending and abiding in the king’s or queen’s most honourable

household; nor to any of the chaplains of the prince or princess, or any

of the king’s or queen’s children, brethren, or sisters, attending daily

in their honourable households, during so long as they shall attend in

any of their households; nor to any chaplain of any archbishop or

bishop, or of any spiritual or temporal lords of the parliament, daily

attending, abiding, and remaining in any of their honourable households;

nor to any chaplain of any duchess, marquess, countess, viscountess, or

baroness, attending daily and abiding in any of their honourable

households; nor to any chaplain of the lord chancellor, or treasurer of

England, the king’s chamberlain, or steward of his household for the

time being, the treasurer and comptroller of the king’s most honourable

household for the time being, attending daily in any of their honourable

households; nor to any chaplain of any of the knights of the honourable

order of the Garter, or of the chief justice of the King’s Bench, warden

of the ports, or of the master of the rolls, nor to any chaplain of the

king’s secretary, dean of the chapel, amner for the time being, daily

attending and dwelling in any of their households, during the time that

they shall so abide and dwell without fraud or covin, in any of the said

honourable households; nor to the master of the rolls, or dean of the

arches, nor to any chancellor or commissary of any archbishop or bishop,

nor to as many of the twelve masters of the chancery and twelve

advocates of the arches as shall be spiritual men, during so long time

as they shall occupy their said rooms and offices; nor to any such

spiritual persons as shall happen by injunction of the lord chancellor,

or the king’s council, to be bound to any daily appearance and

attendance to answer to the law, during the time of such injunction. (S.

28.)

Provided also, that it shall be lawful to the king to give licence to

every of his own chaplains, for non-residence upon their benefices;

anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding. (S. 29.)

Provided also, that every duchess, marquess, countess, baroness, widows,

which shall take any husbands under the degree of a baron, may take such

number of chaplains as they might have done being widows; and that every

such chaplain may have like liberty of non-residence, as they might have

had if their said ladies and mistresses had kept themselves widows. (S.

33.) [This statute is abstracted from Burn in order to show the history

of the law regarding residence, but it was repealed by the 57 Geo. III.

c. 99, and that act also was repealed, and the whole question resettled,

in 1838, by 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106, which is abstracted towards the end of

this article.]

By the 25 _Hen._ VIII. c. 16. Whereas by the statute of the 21 Hen.

VIII. c. 13, it was ordained, that certain honourable persons, as well

spiritual as temporal, shall have chaplains beneficed with cure to serve

them in their honourable houses, which chaplains shall not incur the

danger of any penalty or forfeiture made or declared in the same

parliament, for non-residence upon their said benefices; in which act no

provision was made for any of the king’s judges of his high courts,

commonly called the King’s Bench and the Common Pleas, except only for

the chief judge of the King’s Bench, nor for the chancellor nor the

chief baron of the king’s Exchequer, nor for any other inferior persons

being of the king’s most honourable council: It is therefore enacted,

that as well every judge of the said high courts, and the chancellor and

chief baron of the Exchequer, the king’s general attorney and general

solicitor, for the time that shall be, shall and may retain and have in

his house, or attendant to his person, one chaplain having one benefice

with cure of souls, which may be absent from his said benefice, and not

resident upon the same; the said statute made in the said one and

twentieth year, or any other statute, act, or ordinance to the contrary

notwithstanding.

By the 28 _Hen._ VIII. c. 13. Whereas divers persons, under colour of

the proviso in the act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13., which exempteth

persons conversant in the universities for study, from the penalty of

non-residence, contained in the said act, do resort to the universities,

where, under pretence of study, they live dissolutely, nothing profiting

themselves by study at all, but consume the time in idleness and other

pastimes: It is enacted, that all persons who shall be to any benefice

or benefices promoted, as is aforesaid, being above the age of forty

years, the chancellor, vice-chancellor, commissary of the said

universities, wardens, deans, provosts, presidents, rectors, masters,

principals, and other head rulers of colleges, halls, and other houses

or places corporate within the said universities, doctors of the chair,

(readers of divinity in the common schools of divinity in the said

universities only excepted,) shall be resident and abiding at and upon

one of their said benefices, according to the intent and true meaning of

the said former act, upon such pain and penalties as be contained in the

said former act, made and appointed for such beneficed persons for their

non-residence; and that none of the said beneficed persons, being above

the age aforesaid, except before except, shall be excused of their

non-residence upon the said benefices, for that they be students or

resiants within the said universities; any proviso, or any other clause

or sentence, contained in the said former act of non-residence, or any

other thing to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.

And further, that all and singular such beneficed persons, being under

the age of forty years, resident and abiding within the said

universities, shall not enjoy the privilege and liberty of

non-residence, contained in the proviso of the said former act, unless

he or they be present at the ordinary lecture and lectures, as well at

home in their houses, as in the common school or schools, and in their

proper person keep sophisms, problems, disputations, and other exercises

of learning, and be opponent and respondent in the same, according to

the ordinance and statutes of the said universities; anything contained

in the said proviso, or former act, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Provided always, that nothing in this act shall extend to any person who

shall be reader of any public or common lecture in divinity, law civil,

physic, philosophy, humanity, or any of the liberal sciences, or public

or common interpreter or teacher of the Hebrew tongue, Chaldee, or

Greek; nor to any persons above the age of forty years, who shall resort

to any of the said universities to proceed doctors in divinity, law

civil, or physic, for the time of their said proceedings, and executing

of such sermons, disputations, or lectures, which they be bound by the

statutes of the universities there to do for the said degrees so

obtained.

By the 33 _Hen._ VIII. c. 28. Whereas by the act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c.

13, it was ordained, that certain honourable persons, and other of the

king’s counsellors and officers, as well spiritual as temporal, should

and might have chaplains beneficed with cure, to serve and attend upon

them in their houses, which chaplains shall not incur the danger of any

penalty or forfeiture made or declared in the said act for non-residence

upon their said benefices; in which act no provision is made for any of

the head officers of the king’s courts of the duchy of Lancaster, the

courts of augmentations of the revenues of the Crown, the first-fruits

and tenths, the master of his Majesty’s wards and liveries, the general

surveyors of his lands, and other his Majesty’s court: It is therefore

enacted, that the chancellor of the said court of the duchy of

Lancaster, the chancellor of the court of augmentations, the chancellor

of the court of first-fruits and tenths, the master of his Majesty’s

wards and liveries, and every of the king’s general surveyors of his

lands, the treasurer of his chamber, and the groom of the stole, and

every of them, shall and may retain in his house, or attendant unto his

person, one chaplain having one benefice with cure of souls, which may

be absent from the said benefice, and non-resident upon the same; the

said statute made in the said twenty-first year of his Majesty’s reign,

or any other statute, act, or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding.

Provided always, that every of the said chaplains so being beneficed as

aforesaid, and dwelling with any the officers aforenamed, shall repair

twice a year at the least to his said benefice and cure, and there abide

for eight days at every such time at the least, to visit and instruct

his said cure; on pain of forty shillings for every time so failing,

half to the king, and half to him that will sue for the same in any of

the king’s courts of record, in which suit no essoin, protection, or

wager of law shall be allowed.

And here the question comes to be reconsidered, How far these statutes,

taken together, do supersede the canon law, so as to take away the power

which the ordinary had before, of enjoining residence to the clergy of

his diocese? It seems to be clear, that, before these statutes, the

bishops of this realm had and exercised a power of calling their clergy

to residence: but more frequently they did not exert this power, which

so far forth was to the clergy a virtual dispensation for non-residence.

But this not exerting of their power was in them not always voluntary;

for they were under the controlling influence of the pope, who granted

dispensations of non-residence to as many as would purchase them, and

disposed of abundance of ecclesiastical preferments to foreigners who

never resided here at all. The king also, as appears, had a power to

require the service of clergymen; and consequently in such case to

dispense with them for non-residence upon their benefices. This power of

the king is reserved to him by the aforesaid act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c.

13. But it is the power of dispensation in the two former cases which is

intended to be taken away, namely, by the bishop and by the pope; and by

the said act residence is enjoined to the clergy under the penalty

therein mentioned, notwithstanding any dispensation to the contrary,

from the court of Rome or elsewhere; with a proviso nevertheless, that

the said act shall not extend nor be prejudicial to the chaplains and

others therein specially excepted. It is argued, that this act being

made to rectify what had been insufficient or ineffectual in the canon

law, and inflicting a temporal penalty to enforce the obligation of

residence, the parliament intended that the said act should be from

thenceforth, if not the sole, yet the principal, rule of proceeding in

this particular; and consequently, that the persons excepted in the act

need no other exemption than what is given to them by the act for their

non-residence. Unto this it is answered, that the intention of the act

was not to take away any power which the bishop had of enjoining

residence, but the contrary; namely, it was to take away that power

which the bishop or pope exercised, of granting dispensations for

non-residence; that is to say, the act left to them that power which was

beneficial, and only took from them that which tended to the detriment

of the Church; and consequently, that the bishop may enjoin residence to

the clergy as he might before, only he may not dispense with them as he

did before for non-residence. And indeed, from anything that appears

upon the face of the act, the contrary supposition seemeth to bear

somewhat hard against the rule, which hath generally been adhered to in

the construction of acts of parliament, that an act of parliament in the

affirmative doth not take away the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that

the same shall not be taken away in any act of parliament but by express

words. It is, therefore, further urged, that the three subsequent acts

do explain this act, and by the express words thereof do establish the

aforegoing interpretation. In the first of the three it is said, that

the persons therein mentioned may retain one chaplain, which may be

absent from his benefice, and not resident upon the same; in the second

it is said, that persons above forty years of age residing in the

universities shall not be excused of their non-residence; and again,

that persons under forty years of age shall not enjoy the privilege of

non-residence, contained in the proviso of the said former act, unless

they perform the common exercises there, and the like, which implies,

that, if they do this, they shall enjoy such privilege; and in the third

it is said, that the persons therein mentioned may retain one chaplain,

which may be absent from his benefice, and non-resident upon the same;

and it is not to be supposed, that the parliament intended a greater

privilege to the chaplains of the inferior officers mentioned in the

said last act, than to the chaplains of the royal family and principal

nobility mentioned in the first act. Unto this the most apposite answer

seemeth to be, that it is not expressed absolutely in any of the said

three acts, that the chaplains or others therein mentioned shall enjoy

the privilege of non-residence, or may be absent from their benefices,

and not resident upon the same; but only this, that they may be absent

or non-resident as aforesaid, the said statute made in the said

twenty-first year, or any other statute or ordinance to the contrary

notwithstanding. So that they are only exempted thereby from the

restraints introduced by the statute law, but in other respects are left

as they were before. But concerning this, although it is a case likely

enough to happen every day, there hath been no adjudication.

_Peccham._ We do decree, that rectors who do not make personal residence

in their churches, and who have no vicars, shall exhibit the grace of

hospitality by their stewards according to the ability of the church; so

that at least the extreme necessity of the poor parishioners be

relieved; and they who come there, and in their passage preach the word

of GOD, may receive necessary sustenance, that the churches be not

justly forsaken of the preachers through the violence of want; for the

workman is worthy of his meat, and no man is obliged to warfare at his

own cost.

By the 13 _Eliz._ c. 20. That the livings appointed for ecclesiastical

ministers may not by corrupt and indirect dealings be transferred to

other uses, it is enacted, that no lease to be made of any benefice or

ecclesiastical promotion with cure, or any part thereof, and not being

impropriated, shall endure any longer than while the lessor shall be

ordinarily resident, and serving the cure of such benefice, without

absence, above fourscore days in any one year; but every such lease,

immediately upon such absence, shall cease and be void; and the

incumbent so offending shall for the same lose one year’s profit of his

said benefice, to be distributed by the ordinary among the poor of the

parish: and all chargings of such benefices with cure with any pension,

or with any profit out of the same to be yielded or taken, other than

rents reserved upon leases, shall be void. (S. 1.)

Provided, that every parson, by the laws of this realm allowed to have

two benefices, may demise the one of them, upon which he shall not then

be most ordinarily resident, to his curate only that shall serve the

cure for him; but such lease shall endure no longer than during such

curate’s residence without absence above forty days in any one year. (S.

2.)

H. 1724. _Mills_ and _Etheridge_. Bill by the lessee of Matthew Hawes,

clerk, setting forth his lease dated Feb. 4, 1723, of the tithes for

1724 and 1725, in the parish of Simpson, in the county of Buckingham.

The defendant pleaded, that it appears by the plaintiff’s bill, that his

lease was dated Feb. 4, 1723; then pleads the statute of the 13 Eliz. c.

20, and avers, that Matthew Hawes the lessor was absent from his

benefice eighty days and more in one year since the lease, and before

the filing of the bill; that the church of Simpson is not impropriate;

and that it is a benefice or ecclesiastical promotion with cure; and

therefore, by such non-residence, and by virtue of the said act, that

the lease was void. And the plea was allowed: and it was determined

that, there is no necessity to aver that the absence was voluntary, (for

if it was otherwise, it lay upon the plaintiff to show it,) or to aver

that the absence was eighty days together.—_Bunb._ 210.

The same plea came on E., 1726, in the case of _Quilter_ and _Lowndes_,

and allowed by the whole court.—_Bunb._ 211.

But, query, says the reporter, if this is a good plea if the rector and

lessee join; for by non-residence before sentence he only forfeits his

lease and rent, not his tithes.—_Atkinson and Prodgers_ v. _Peasley,

Bunb._ 211.

Bishops are not punishable by the statute of the 21 Hen. VIII. for

non-residence upon their bishoprics; but although an archbishop or

bishop be not tied to be resident upon his bishopric by the statute, yet

they are thereto obliged by the ecclesiastical law, and may be compelled

to keep residence by ecclesiastical censures.—_Watson_, c. 37.

Thus, by a constitution of Archbishop Langton, bishops shall be careful

to reside in their cathedrals, on some of the greater feasts, and at

least in some part of Lent, as they shall see to be expedient for the

welfare of their souls.—_Lynd._ 130.

And by a constitution of Otho: What is incumbent upon the venerable

fathers, the archbishops and bishops, by their office to be done, their

name of dignity, which is that of bishop (_episcopus_) or

superintendent, evidently expresseth. For it properly concerns them

(according to the gospel expression) to watch over their flock by night.

And since they ought to be a pattern by which they who are subject to

them ought to reform themselves, which cannot be done unless they show

them an example, we exhort them in the LORD, and admonish them, that,

residing at their cathedral churches, they celebrate proper masses on

the principal feast days, and in Lent, and in Advent. And they shall go

about their dioceses at proper seasons, correcting and reforming the

churches, consecrating and sowing the word of life in the LORD’S field.

For the better performance of all which they shall twice in the year, to

wit, in Advent and in Lent, cause to be read unto them the profession

which they made at their consecration.—_Athon_, 55.

And by a constitution of Othobon: Although bishops know themselves

bound, as well by Divine as ecclesiastical precepts, to personal

residence with the flock of GOD committed to them, yet because there

are some who do not seem to attend hereunto, therefore we, pursuing

the monition of Otho the legate, do earnestly exhort them in the LORD,

and admonish them in virtue of their holy obedience, and under

attestation of the Divine judgments, that, out of care to their flock,

and for the solace of the churches espoused to them, they be duly

present, especially on solemn days, in Lent and in Advent, unless

their absence on such days shall be required for just cause by their

superiors.—_Athon_, 118.

Canon 42. “Every dean, master, or warden, or chief governor of any

cathedral or collegiate church, shall be resident in the same fourscore

and ten days _conjunctim_ or _divisim_ in every year at the least, and

then shall continue there in preaching the word of GOD, and keeping good

hospitality, except he shall be otherwise let with weighty and urgent

causes, to be approved by the bishop of the diocese, or in any other

lawful sort dispensed with.”

“_To be approved by the bishop._”—By the ancient canon law, personal

attendance on the bishop, or study in the university, was a just cause

of non-residence; and as such, notwithstanding the non-residence,

entitled them to all profits, except quotidians.—_Gibson_, 172.

Canon 44. “No prebendaries nor canons in cathedral or collegiate

churches, having one or more benefices with cure, (and not being

residentiaries in the same cathedral or collegiate churches,) shall,

under colour of their said prebends, absent themselves from their

benefices with cure above the space of one month in the year, unless it

be for some urgent cause, and certain time to be allowed by the bishop

of the diocese. And such of the said canons and prebendaries, as by the

ordinances of the cathedral or collegiate churches do stand bound to be

resident in the same, shall so among themselves sort and proportion the

times of the year, concerning residence to be kept in the said churches,

as that some of them always shall be personally resident there; and all

those who be, or shall be, residentiaries in any cathedral or collegiate

church, shall, after the days of their residency appointed by their

local statutes or custom expired, presently repair to their benefices,

or some one of them, or to some other charge where the law requireth

their presence, there to discharge their duties according to the laws in

that case provided. And the bishop of the diocese shall see the same to

be duly performed and put in execution.”

So that, besides the general laws directing the residence of other

clergymen, these dignitaries have another law peculiar to themselves,

namely, the local statutes of their respective foundations, the validity

of which local statutes this canon supposeth and affirmeth. And with

respect to the new foundations in particular, the act of parliament of

the 6 Anne, c. 21, enacteth, that their local statutes shall be in

force, so far as they are not contrary to the constitution of the Church

of England, or the laws of the land. This canon is undoubtedly a part of

the constitution of the Church; so that if the canon interfereth in any

respect with the said local statutes, the canon is to be preferred, and

the local statutes to be in force only so far forth as they are modified

and regulated by the canon.

There doth not appear to be any difference, either by the ecclesiastical

or temporal laws of this kingdom, between the case of a rector and of a

vicar concerning residence; except only that the vicar is sworn to

reside, (with a proviso, unless he shall be otherwise dispensed withal

by his diocesan,) and the rector is not sworn. And the reason of this

difference was this: in the Council of Lateran, held under Alexander

III., and in another Lateran council held under Innocent III., there

were very strict canons made against pluralities: by the first of these

councils, pluralities are restrained, and every person admitted _ad

ecclesiam, vel ecclesiasticum ministerium_, is bound to reside there,

and personally serve the cure; by the second of these councils, if any

person, having one benefice with cure of souls, accepts of a second, his

first is declared void _ipso jure_. These canons were received in

England, and are still part of our ecclesiastical law. At the first

appearance of these canons, there was no doubt made but they obliged all

rectors; for they, according to the language of the law, had churches in

title, and had _beneficium ecclesiasticum_: and of such the canons

spoke. But vicars did not then look upon themselves to be bound by these

canons, for they, as the gloss upon the decretals speaks, had not

_ecclesiam quoad titulum_; and the text of the law describes them not as

having benefices, but as bound _personis et ecclesiis deservire_; that

is, as assistant to the rector in his church.

Upon this notion practice was founded and prevailed in England, which

eluded the canons made against pluralities. A man beneficed in one

church could not accept another, without avoiding the first; but a man

possessed of a benefice could accept a vicarage under the rector in

another church, for that was no benefice in law, and therefore not

within the letter of the canon, which forbids any man holding two

benefices.

The way then of taking a second living in fraud of the canon was this: a

friend was presented, who took the institution, and had the church

_quoad titulum_: as soon as he was possessed, he constituted the person

vicar for whose benefit he took the living, and by consent of the

diocesan allotted the whole profit of the living for the vicar’s

portion, except a small matter reserved to himself.

This vicar went and resided upon his first living, for the canon reached

him where he had the benefice; but having no benefice where he had only

a vicarage, he thought himself secure against the said canons requiring

residence.

This piece of management gave occasion to several papal decrees, and to

the following constitution of Archbishop Langton, viz. “No ordinary

shall admit any one to a vicarage, who will not personally officiate

there.”—_Lyndwood_, 64.

And to another constitution of the same archbishop, by which it is

enjoined, that vicars who will be non-resident shall be

deprived.—_Lyndwood_, 131.

But the abuse still continued, and therefore Otho, in his legatine

constitutions, applied a stronger remedy, ordaining, that none shall be

admitted to a vicarage, but who, renouncing all other benefices (if he

hath any) with cure of souls, shall swear that he will make residence

there, and shall constantly so reside: otherwise his institution shall

be null, and the vicarage shall be given to another.—_Athon_, 24.

And it is upon the authority of this constitution that the oath of

residence is administered to vicars to this day. And this obligation of

vicars to residence was further enforced by a constitution of Othobon,

as followeth: If any shall detain a vicarage contrary to the aforesaid

constitution of Otho, he shall not appropriate to himself the profits

thereof, but shall restore the same; one moiety whereof shall be applied

to the use of that church, and the other moiety shall be distributed

half to the poor of the parish and half to the archdeacon. And the

archdeacon shall make diligent inquiry every year, and cause this

constitution to be strictly observed. And if he shall find that any one

detaineth a vicarage contrary to the premises, he shall forthwith notify

to the ordinary that such vicarage is vacant, who shall do what to him

belongeth in the premises; and if the ordinary shall delay to institute

another into such vicarage, he shall be suspended from collation,

institution, or presentation to any benefices until he shall comply. And

if any one shall strive to detain a vicarage contrary to the premises,

and persist in his obstinacy for a month; he shall, besides the

penalties aforesaid, be _ipso facto_ deprived of his other benefices (if

he have any); and shall be disabled for ever to hold such vicarage which

he hath so vexatiously detained, and from obtaining any other benefice

for three years. And if the archdeacon shall be remiss in the premises,

he shall be deprived of the share of the aforesaid penalty assigned to

him, and be suspended from the entrance of the church until he shall

perform his duty.—_Athon_, 95.

So that, upon the whole, the doubt was not, whether rectors were obliged

to residence; the only question was, whether vicars were also obliged;

and to enforce the residence of vicars, in like manner as of rectors,

the aforesaid constitutions were ordained.—_Sherl._ ibid. 20–22.

Canon 47. “Every beneficed man licensed by the laws of this realm, upon

urgent occasions of other service, not to reside upon his benefice,

shall cause his cure to be supplied by a curate that is a sufficient and

licensed preacher, if the worth of the benefice will bear it. But

whosoever hath two benefices, shall maintain a preacher licensed in the

benefice where he doth not reside, except he preach himself at both of

them usually.”

And by the last article of Archbishop Wake’s directions it is required,

that the bishop shall take care, as much as possible, that whosoever is

admitted to serve any cure, do reside in the parish where he is to

serve, especially in livings that are able to support a resident curate;

and where that cannot be done, that they do at least reside so near to

the place, that they may conveniently perform all their duties, both in

the church and parish.

By the faculty of dispensation, a pluralist is required, in that

benefice from which he shall happen to be most absent, to preach

thirteen sermons every year; and to exercise hospitality for two months

yearly; and, as much as in him lieth, to support and relieve the

inhabitants of that parish, especially the poor and needy.

By the 1 Will. & Mar. c. 26. If any person presented or nominated by

either of the universities to a popish benefice with cure, shall be

absent from the same above the space of sixty days in any one year; in

such case, the said benefice shall become void.—_Abridged from Burn_.

The 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106 repeals the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, and the 57 Geo.

III. c. 99, relating to residence, and provides (s. 32) that every

spiritual person holding any benefice shall keep residence on his

benefice, and in the house of residence (if any) belonging thereto; and

if any such person shall without any such licence or exemption, as is in

this act allowed for that purpose, or unless he shall be resident at

some other benefice of which he may be possessed, absent himself from

such benefice, or from such house of residence, if any, for any period

exceeding the space of three months together, or to be accounted at

several times in any one year, he shall, when such absence shall exceed

three months, and not exceed six months, forfeit one third part of the

annual value of the benefice from which he shall so absent himself; and

when such absence shall exceed six months, and not exceed eight months,

one half part of such annual value; and when such absence shall exceed

eight months, two third parts of such annual value; and when such

absence shall have been for the whole year, three fourth parts of such

annual value.

By sect. 33, the bishop may give licence to reside out of the usual

house if it be unfit, or, if there be no house, in some convenient

house, although not within such benefice.

By sect. 34, houses purchased by governors of Queen Anne’s bounty, to be

deemed the lawful houses of residence.

By sect. 41, the incumbent is bound to keep in repair the house of

residence, whether he reside in it or not. And for neglect of this he is

to be subject to all the penalties of non-residence. For various

exceptional cases, in which non-residence may be permitted, see sections

37, 38, 43, 44, &c.

By sect. 53, it is enacted, that in every year the bishop of every

diocese is to make a return to her Majesty in council of the name of

every benefice within his diocese, and the names of the several

spiritual persons holding the same respectively, distinguishing those

who are resident and those who are not resident, and stating whether

they have exemption or not.

Sect. 59 contains strong provisions for the punishment of any one who

holds a residence belonging to a benefice which has been let to him, and

refuses to vacate after the incumbent is ordered to reside, and for

enabling the incumbent to obtain possession of his residence by summary

means.

Sect. 76 provides, that the curate under certain circumstances shall be

required to reside.

This statute contains many provisions for enabling the ordinary to

provide a residence where none exists.

RESIDENTIARY. The capitular members of cathedrals, who are bound to

reside at the cathedral church, to perform the ordinary duties there,

and to attend more immediately to its concerns. In England, all

cathedrals of the old foundations have residentiaries, (canons

residentiary, as they are usually called,) the great majority of

prebendaries being nonresidentiary. Till the late parliamentary

alterations, the greatest number of residentiaries was nine, the

smallest four, the dean being always one. The following account of

residentiaries is abridged from _Churton’s_ admirable and instructive

Life of _Dean Nowell_, (pp. 313, _et seq._)

We learn from the ancient statutes of St. Paul’s, that it was customary

in early days for all the canons or prebendaries to reside, being thirty

in number; and when, in process of time, many, by mutual connivance,

withdrew themselves to their cures or avocations elsewhere, the

remaining few bound themselves by a new oath, to reside, and attend the

duties of the Church.... At length the residentiaries were reduced to

two only.... Bishop Braybrooke, to remedy this abuse, having interposed

his authority, the matter was referred to arbitration of the Crown, by

whom, in 1399, an order was made that residence should thereafter be

kept according to the form of the Sarum Missal.... In Dean Colet’s time

the statutes were revised, and it was ordered, that as the burdens of

St. Paul’s were heavy, and the patrimony slender, there should in future

be, under the dean as head, four, and only four, canons resident;

eligible, as before, out of the senior prebendaries, offering themselves

and protesting their residence, as formerly, at one of the quarterly

feasts; when, if none came forward, some one should be invited to accept

the office, and in case of refusal, be amerced by some pecuniary fine.

The residentiaries of St. Paul’s, (p. 312,) though, in point of form,

they are elective by the dean and chapter, are virtually, however, as is

well known, in the patronage of the Crown; and upon every vacancy that

occurs, a letter missive from his Majesty recommending some clerk, who

is previously a prebendary by the collation of the bishop of London, is

as certain in its operation, as the _congè d’élire_ for the election of

a bishop: by resistance, in one case, as well as the other, a

_præmunire_ would be incurred. Archdeacon Churton adds, (p. 316,) that

“in the cathedral of Lincoln, the custom, in ancient times, was similar

to what appears to have been the rule in St. Paul’s. Of the numerous

body of prebendaries, members of that church, any one who chose it, used

to protest in chapter his intention to become a residentiary, and they

were obliged to admit him accordingly, upon taking the usual oath. A

practice so variable and uncertain as this, being found inconvenient in

many respects, it was settled and agreed in a general chapter, about

three hundred years ago, with the concurrence of the bishops, that the

number of residentiaries should be limited to four, who were to be the

four _principal persons_ (see _Persona_) of the church, as the dean,

precentor, chancellor, and subdean. An alteration not very dissimilar

took place at a later period, 1697, in the church of York; when, in

consequence of a representation from the dean and chapter, the number of

residentiaries was reduced, under a writ of privy seal, from six to

four, now, as formerly, in the nomination of the dean.”

To these observations of Archdeacon Churton may be added, that at

Chichester, the chapter called on whom they pleased to reside, generally

observing seniority. The same rule prevailed at Hereford, where the

residentiaries are still elected by the chapter. In most cathedrals

residence was _protested_ (as stated above) at one of the great

chapters. Forty days’ notice was given at Lichfield. (See _Dugdale’s

Monasticon_, ed. 1830, and _Dugdale’s St. Paul’s_.) The present number

of residentiaries at Exeter was fixed by Bishop Ward, in 1663.

From the ancient documents appended to Dugdale’s History of St. Paul’s,

it appears by more than one explicit declaration, that all the

residentiaries were required to reside together, not merely dividing the

year between them, according to the present most reprehensible

arrangement. They were allowed to serve no other church whatever. They

were required _to be all present together at all services on Sundays and

greater holidays_, and so to manage between themselves on ordinary week

days, that one at least should be present at each one of them [and it

must be remembered that the daily services were then more numerous than

now]. And if they neglected this perpetual residence, from which only

occasional absence, as to parish clergymen from their cures, was

permitted, they were not considered as entitled to their emoluments; and

their neglect is censured in the old records, in terms of the strongest

reprobation.

RESIGNATION. 1. A resignation is, where a parson, vicar, or other

beneficed clergyman, voluntarily gives up and surrenders his charge and

preferment to those from whom he received the same.—_Deg._ p. i. c. 14.

2. That ordinary who hath the power of institution, hath power also to

accept of a resignation made of the same church to which he may

institute; and therefore the respective bishop, or other person who,

either by patent under him, or by privilege or prescription, hath the

power of institution, are the proper persons to whom a resignation ought

to be made. And yet a resignation of a deanery in the king’s gift may be

made to the king; as of the deanery of Wells. And some hold, that the

resignation may well be made to the king of a prebend that is no

donative: but others, on the contrary, have held, that a resignation of

a prebend ought to be made only to the ordinary of the diocese, and not

to the king as supreme ordinary; because the king is not bound to give

notice to the patron (as the ordinary is) of the resignation; nor can

the king make a collation by himself without presenting to the bishop,

notwithstanding his supremacy.—2 _Roll’s Abr._ 358. _Watson_, c. 4.

And resignation can only be made to a superior: this is a maxim in the

temporal law, and is applied by Lord Coke to the ecclesiastical law,

when he says, that therefore a bishop cannot resign to the dean and

chapter, but it must be to the metropolitan from whom he received

confirmation and consecration.—_Gibson_, 822.

And it must be made to the next immediate superior, and not to the

mediate; as of a church presentative to the bishop, and not to the

metropolitan.—2 _Roll’s Abr._ 358.

But donatives are not resignable to the ordinary; but to the patron, who

hath power to admit.—_Gibson_, 822.

And if there be two patrons of a donative and the incumbent resign to

one of them, it is good for the whole.—_Deg._ p. i. c. 14.

3. Regularly resignation must be made in person, and not by proxy. There

is indeed a writ in the register, entitled, _litera procuratoria ad

resignandum_, by which the person constituted proctor was enabled to do

all things necessary to be done in order to an exchange; and, of these

things, resignation was one. And Lyndwood supposeth, that any

resignation may be made by proctor. But in practice there is no way (as

it seemeth) of resigning, but either to do it by personal appearance

before the ordinary, or at least to do it elsewhere before a public

notary, by an instrument directed immediately to the ordinary, and

attested by the said notary; in order to be presented to the ordinary,

by such proper hand as may pray his acceptance. In which case the person

presenting the instrument to the ordinary doth not resign _nomine

procuratorio_, as proctors do; but only presents the resignation of the

person already made.—_Gibson_, 822. _Deg._ p. i. c. 14. _Watson_, c. 4.

4. A collateral condition may not be annexed to the resignation, no more

than an ordinary may admit upon condition, or a judgment be confessed

upon condition, which are judicial acts.—_Watson_, c. 4.

For the words of resignation have always been, _pure_, _sponte_,

_absolute_, _et simpliciter_; to exclude all indirect bargains, not only

for money, but for other considerations. And therefore, in _Gayton’s

case_, E. 24 Eliz., where the resignation was to the use of two persons

therein named, and further limited with this condition, that if one of

the two was not admitted to the benefice resigned within six months, the

resignation should be void and of none effect; such resignation, by

reason of the condition, was declared to be absolutely void.—_God._ 277.

_Gibs._ 821. 1 _Still._ 334.

But where the resignation is made for the sake of exchange only, there

it admits of this condition, viz. if the exchange shall take full

effect, and not otherwise; as appears by the form of resignation, which

is in the register.—_Gibson_, 821.

By a constitution of Othobon: Whereas sometimes a man resigneth his

benefices that he may obtain a vacant see; and bargaineth with the

collator, that if he be not elected to the bishopric, he shall have his

benefices again; we do decree, that they shall not be restored to him,

but shall be conferred upon others, as lawfully void. And if they be

restored to him, the same shall be of no effect; and he who shall so

restore him, after they have been resigned into his hands, or shall

institute the resigner into them again, if he is a bishop, he shall be

supended from the use of his dalmatic and pontificals; and if he is an

inferior prelate, he shall be suspended from his office until he shall

think fit to revoke the same.—_Athon_, 134.

5. No resignation can be valid till accepted by the proper ordinary;

that is, no person appointed to a cure of souls can quit that cure, or

discharge himself of it, but upon good motives, to be approved by the

superior who committed it to him; for it may be he would quit it for

money, or to live idly, or the like. And this is the law temporal, as

well as spiritual; as appears by that plain resolution which hath been

given, that all presentations made to benefices resigned, before such

acceptance, are void. And there is no pretence to say, that the ordinary

is obliged to accept; since the law hath appointed no known remedy if he

will not accept, any more than if he will not ordain.—_Gibs._ 822. 1

_Still._ 334.

Lyndwood makes a distinction in this case, between a cure of souls and a

sinecure. The resignation of a sinecure, he thinks, is good immediately,

without the superior’s consent; because none but he that resigneth hath

interest in that case. But where there is a cure of souls it is

otherwise; because not he only hath interest but others also unto whom

he is bound to preach the word of GOD; wherefore in this case it is

necessary, that there be the ratification of the bishop, or of such

other person as hath power by right or custom to admit such

resignation.—_Gibson_, 823.

Thus in the case of the _Marchioness of Rockingham_ and _Griffith_, Mar.

22, 1755, Dr. Griffith being possessed of the two rectories of Leythley

and Thurnsco, in order that he might be capacitated to accept another

living which became vacant, to wit, the rectory of Handsworth, executed

an instrument of resignation of the rectory of Leythley aforesaid,

before a notary public, which was tendered to and left with the

archbishop of York, the ordinary of the place within which Leythley is

situate. It was objected, that here doth not appear to have been any

acceptance of the resignation by the archbishop, and that without his

acceptance the said rectory of Leythley could not become void. And it

was held by the lord chancellor clearly, that the ordinary’s acceptance

of the resignation is absolutely necessary to make an avoidance. But

whether in this case there was a proper resignation and acceptance

thereof, he reserved for further consideration; and in the mean time

recommended it to the archbishop, to produce the resignation in court.

Afterwards, on the 17th of April, 1755, the cause came on again to be

heard, and the resignation was then produced. But the counsel for the

executors of the late marquis declaring that they did not intend to make

any further opposition, the lord chancellor gave no opinion upon the

resignation, or the effect of it; but in the course of the former

argument he held, that the acceptance of a resignation by the ordinary

is necessary to make it effectual, and that it is in the power of the

ordinary to accept or refuse a resignation.

And in the case of _Hesket_ and _Grey_, H. 28 Geo. II., where a general

bond of resignation was put in suit, and the defendant pleaded that he

offered to resign, but the ordinary would not accept the resignation;

the court of King’s Bench were unanimously of opinion, that the ordinary

is a judicial officer, and is intrusted with a judicial power to accept

or refuse a resignation as he thinks proper; and judgment was given for

the plaintiff.

6. After acceptance of the resignation, lapse shall not run but from the

time of notice given: it is true the church is void immediately upon

acceptance, and the patron may present if he please; but as to lapse,

the general rule that is here laid down is the unanimous doctrine of all

the books. Insomuch that if the bishop who accepted the resignation dies

before notice given, the six months shall not commence till notice is

given, by the guardian of the spiritualities, or by the succeeding

bishop; with whom the act of resignation is presumed to

remain.—_Gibson_, 823.